Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

PETITION

Roads (Straying Animals)

Mr. A. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I desire to present a Petition signed by George Elwell, of 32, Laurel Road, in the Borough of Tipton, Staffordshire, supported by 3,070 residents of the Borough of Tipton, referring to the need for amendment of the Highways Act, 1859, Section 135, which provides for a fine not exceeding 5s. in respect of each animal straying on a highway. The Petition calls attention to the fact that recently the son of George Elwell, aged 21 years, died in Dudley Guest Hospital, on 25th November, 1960, after a motor cycle he was riding was in collision with a stray horse in Central

Avenue, Tipton. Road accidents caused by stray horses are constantly being reported. Your Petitioner considers that a penalty of 5s. is totally inadequate in modern conditions. Wherefore, your Petitioner humbly prays that this House will introduce legislation to increase such penalties.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Low-price Book Scheme

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements have been made for a consortium of publishers to assist him in the publishing and distribution arrangements in connection with his scheme of cheap books for overseas.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): An export consortium has been formed by a number of publishers with special interest or experience in exporting books. It has begun to operate and is already giving valuable advice, particularly about marketing arrangements, in connection with the low-price book scheme. I am very grateful to the members of this consortium for their help.

Mr. Thomson: Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members of this consortium, and could he reassure the House that the members are not of such high level in the publishing world individually that they will find it difficult to hold frequent enough meetings to get the action now needed?

Dr. Hill: Any question of the publication of names is a matter for the consortium itself. I should prefer not to comment on the level of its members, but it is representative of the publishers engaged in export business.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made with Her Majesty's Government's scheme for cheap books for overseas, apart from the arrangements for cheap editions of university text books; how many titles have been selected; and how many books it is expected to distribute during the coming year.

Dr. Hill: To date, the Advisory Committee has recommended 30 titles for production in low-priced editions, and negotiations are proceeding with the publishers. This is in addition to the 23 textbooks now in course of printing and despatch. It is rather too early to forecast the number of books to be produced this year, which must depend on the course of the negotiations with the publishers.

Mr. Thomson: But does not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster think it is a little strange that he should now cautiously say that it is too early to forecast the number of books being produced when last year he forecast that he would have 2 million copies produced by the end of the year? Does not his Answer, and his Answer to the previous Question, give some indication of the kind of handicaps that a country like Britain appears to face in trying to compete with the Communist world in providing cheap books?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member will recall that it was decided to put the emphasis in the first place on textbooks—I announced that to this House—and that does affect the numbers concerned. In general, I should like to tell the hon.

Gentleman that after a slow start, when many problems had to be resolved, the scheme is now well under way, and we should from now on see a steep increase in the number of books.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether arrangements are being made with certain countries that ban the entry of Britsh books? Some very good and enlightened books are banned by the British Commonwealth countries. What is the good of trying to export books to those countries if they are to be banned when they get there?

Dr. Hill: There is an enormous opening for British books, even allowing for the few countries that ban their importation.

Mr. Mayhew: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the first book will be sold?

Dr. Hill: The first books are now in transit to India, so it will be very soon.

Communist Countries (Broadcasts)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the number of hours of broadcasting by the British Broadcasting Corporation overseas services to each of the countries in the Communist bloc; and what proportion of each of these broadcasts is affected and nullified by jamming.

Dr. Hill: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There is good evidence that, in spite of jamming, the B.B.C.'s broadcasts can be heard in many parts of the countries to which they are directed.

Mr. Donnelly: What attention are the Government giving to the possibility of overcoming this jamming? Is there any priority given to technical research to see what can be done, because, if that were the case, it might be of much more use in taking the truth behind the Iron Curtain than dozens of armoured divisions?

Dr. Hill: We need notice of the Question about technical methods and research, but there is good evidence that, despite jamming, there is success in getting through the barrier.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that all ordinary broadcasts in English sent out by the B.B.C. are not jammed at all but are heard in most places all over Eastern Europe, while the only broadcasts subject to jamming are the specifically propaganda ones put out for specific propaganda purposes?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member is quite right; the teaching of English programmes are not jammed. Perhaps I may add that in the case of Russia about one-quarter of the broadcasts are jammed. It is in general the news broadcasts and the news commentary, but the hon. Member will recall that the B.B.C., with it obligations of impartiality, is responsible for those broadcasts, and the last thing we would wish would be Government interference with or control of those broadcasts.

Following is the information:


Service
Number of hours per week broadcast
Proportion of programme time affected by jamming


Chinese
5¼
All


Czechoslovak
13¼
All


Rumanian
12¼
All


Bulgarian
10½
All


Hungarian
14¾
All


German
28¼
All in East Germany


Russian
17¾
About 25 per cent. in recent months


Polish
16¼
Nil But heavy jamming by neighbouring Communist countries


Albanian
3½
Nil But heavy jamming by neighbouring Communist countries


In addition, the B.B.C.'s English for Europe programmes are not jammed and can be heard throughout Europe for 17¼ hours a week.

Health and Housing

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in co-ordinating Government information services, what special steps he is taking to ensure that the public is kept fully informed about the Government's latest proposals in the fields of health and housing.

Dr. Hill: None, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that we ought to take special steps? Is he not aware that many citizens today are puzzled

and annoyed because they thought the policy of the Government was to stabilise living costs and to reduce taxes, whereas the Housing Minister is mainly concerned in raising rents and the Health Minister is mainly concerned with charging taxes? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the public ought to be informed of the reasons for this contradiction?

Dr. Hill: My right hon. Friends have made perfectly plain in public statements both the wisdom and practicability of their proposals, and no special steps are needed from me.

National Health Service

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent the Government's information services at home and abroad, in giving publicity to British institutions, have drawn attention to the achievements of the National Health Service.

Dr. Hill: To a considerable extent.

Mr. Swingler: While ignoring the Minister's special personal role as one who bitterly opposed the inception of the Health Service—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was not then in the House."]—he did so outside—may I ask if in giving publicity to the matter he tells the people, especially American people, that a Health Service functions best according to the principle of "To each according to his need" when paid for out of community funds and when it is not confused with a poll tax on health needs?

Dr. Hill: On the personal point, I say no more than that as the representative spokesman for a great profession I did my duty in those days. On the second point, which I take to be a serious point, there is a wealth of information material by film, radio, reference material and the dike, which goes all over the world, on the subject of the Health Service, reinforced no doubt by statements by the Minister of Health about the expansion of that Service.

Mr. Nabarro: It is a pity I could not have got in, for I would have knocked him over the fence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is quite enough trouble getting Questions in without having a running commentary.

Overseas Television Transcription Service

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost to public funds in recent years of subsidising the British Broadcasting Corporation's overseas television transcription service.

Dr. Hill: This service is not subsidised, but funds have been made available for the overseas departments to acquire television material, including B.B.C. material, for distribution overseas.

Mr. Mayhew: How much is being spent in this way?

Dr. Hill: The amount of money available for the current year was about £17,000, but the position is that in fact that money has been adequate for the material available for the purpose.

Mr. Mayhew: May I ask the Minister further about this? Why is there this extraordinary contrast between the £¼ million which is very effectively spent in subsidising sound transcription services of the B.B.C. and the very small—indeed, it appears negligible—sum to help the equally important television transcription service?

Dr. Hill: It is for this reason. The B.B.C. disposes by agreement of 500 programmes a year to overseas broadcasting bodies, the principle of the arrangement being that it disposes of that material on an economic basis. Where that is not possible, the plan is that the departments obtain the material which they consider appropriate from the B.B.C. or other broadcasting bodies and distribute it to the network of information officers in fifty-three countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Personal Case

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why Mr. J. R. Thompson, of 43, George Street, Whitehaven, is not entitled to draw his pension from 15th December, 1960, to 17th December, 1960, having ceased to draw his unemployment benefit on 14th December, 1960, and having been informed that pension was not payable until 19th December, 1960.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am making inquiries into this case and will write to the hon. Member about it shortly.

Prescription Charges

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps he is taking to protect insured persons on sickness benefit from having to submit to a means test before being enabled to recover National Health Service prescription charges incurred by them during their period on sickness benefit.

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether persons on sickness benefit require to make application to the National Assistance Board and submit to a means test before obtaining any refund of National Health Service prescription charges which they may have been obliged to pay.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): A person whose sickness benefit is supplemented by National Assistance can obtain a refund at the post office without further formality, on production of the chemist's receipt and his supplementary order book. Others who want help can apply to the National Assistance Board under the arrangements fully described by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on 8th February.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in country areas, particularly in Scotland where vast distances have to be covered, this means considerable inconvenience to men on sickness benefit? Will he look into the matter again and see if this is necessary in country areas where men often have to travel for miles to the National Assistance Board or miles to the dispensing chemist's shop, and this may be a very expensive item?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, the Board will follow up any case in which difficulty arises, but, as the hon. Member knows, this is not a new procedure. It has been followed for a good many years in respect of existing prescription charges, and I have no reason to believe that it will cause any general difficulty.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what was the number and amount of National Health Service prescription charges refunded by the National Assistance Board in Ayrshire to persons not in receipt of National Assistance supple. mentation during each of the past four years.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In general, such information can be given for particular localities only for the past two years, as it is derived in part from accounting records which have been destroyed for earlier periods. It is estimated that during (959 and 1960, in an area approximating to Ayrshire, the National Assistance Board refunded, in respect of persons not already receiving a regular weekly National Assistance grant, total amounts of, respectively, £70 representing 1,400 prescription items and £60 representing 1,200.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the County of Ayr is comprised of many small villages and that many people in them strongly object to having to ask for this refund because that fact soon becomes everybody's business? Could she try to inculcate in her right hon. Friend some more humane method whereby poor people receiving National Assistance might be able to recoup the prescription charge without the matter being publicised as it is at present?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think the hon. Member does scant justice to the great care and sympathy shown by the National Assistance Board. Indeed, in the supplementary question he referred—

Mr. Manuel: That is not the point I was making.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: —to those receiving National Assistance, whereas his main Question refers to those not normally in receipt of National Assistance.

Mr. Manuel: May I ask—

Mr. Speaker: No. I was too indulgent to the hon. Member in allowing his other question. I did not call him again.

Mr. Milian: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proportion of applications to the

National Assistance Board for refund of National Health Service prescription charges over each of the past three years was granted; and what proportion was refused.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not possible to answer this Question in precisely the form in which it is asked, but I can state that in 1958 the total amount refunded by the National Assistance Board was £972,000 representing over 19 million prescription items; in 1959, £1,003,000 representing over 20 million; and, in 1960, £1,066,000 also representing over 20 million. The numbers of applications rejected in these years were, respectively, about 3,000, 2,000 and 1,500.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance at what level of weekly personal income a woman living alone may expect the National Assistance Board to refund a National Health Service prescription charge she has paid.

Mr. Cliffe: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance at what level of weekly personal income a married man without children may expect the National Assistance Board to refund a National Health Service prescription charge paid by him in respect either of himself or of his wife.

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the minimum weekly income for a man, wife and two children that will qualify for refund by the National Assistance Board of National Health Service prescription charges paid by that family.

Mrs. Cullen: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the minimum weekly income for a man, wife and four children that will qualify for refund by the National Assistance Board of any National Health Service prescription charges paid by that family.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid it is not possible to give the figures asked for in these Questions, since a number of factors, such as rent, rates, age of children and special needs, which under the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations the Board is required to take into account, are not stated and may vary from case to case.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that his Answer is completely unsatisfactory? Will he therefore reconsider the position so that people may know what their entitlement is for reclaiming refund of these prescription charges?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I take it from the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question that he does not fully appreciate how National Assistance works and is administered, and that to relieve need and prevent hardship it is, for example, necessary to take into account the extent of the rent and rates paid, the special, seeds of the person concerned, and a number of other factors. Therefore, it simply is not possible, unless those factors can also be predicated, to answer this kind of question.

Mr. Houghton: Does the Minister realise the difficulties which will be imposed on many people at the marginal point between National Assistance and no National Assistance, and the good deal of unnecessary traipsing round the National Assistance Board and correspondence and visits by National Assistance Board officers that will be necessary to determine these cases? Can he not get some simplified method of a plain declaration—some simple information as to the qualifying standards—and allow that to stand as the basis for refund of contributions?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The information, of course, is available in National Assistance Board leaflets which set out very clearly what are the bases on which there is a qualification for National Assistance generally under the Determination of Need Regulations. One can only simplify it in the way suggested in the Question at the price of inflicting hardship and injustice on, for example, people whose rents are above the average.

Mr. Ross: Surely the Minister appreciates that if the Government are to avoid hardship in these cases of people who are not in receipt of National Assistance they need somehow or other to get across to them some sort of sample information such as we have asked for in the Question; otherwise people will adopt the attitude of: "Why should we bother? We do not know whether it is worth our while." Whether the Government like it or not—and obviously they do not like it from their statements—hardship will be caused.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not reject the idea of sample information. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health gave some the other night. The trouble is that these Questions as framed would not elicit such information.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Would it not be possible where National Assistance is drawn for recipients to be given a leaflet with their money at the Post Office?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, the problem to which these Questions relate is in the case of people not drawing regular Assistance. I think that there is no reason to believe that any difficulty at all arises in the class of case to which he refers.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not the case that what the Minister is saying is that no one will be able to obtain these rebates unless he or she first goes to the National Assistance Board? There is no other way in which it can be done. What we are asking is that there be some sense of the humiliation many people feel will be inflicted on them by this move. We are asking whether they be given advice as to what their position is without their first going to the National Assistance Board.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, no need in the literal sense to go to the National Assistance Board. It is perfectly possible to get in touch with the Board, as many people will in this case, through the post. The hon. Gentleman should also, I think, appreciate that this is a system which has been operating for quite a number of years in respect of the existing prescription charges.

Mr. Cooper: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the conditions which have to be satisfied to enable a person not currently in receipt of National Assistance to claim a refund of prescription and other charges.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Apart from war pensioners who, whatever their resources, can obtain a refund in respect of medicines, etc. prescribed for their accepted war disabilities, a person to be eligible for refund of prescription charges has to satisfy the Board that after paying the


charge or any part of it he would be left with insufficient resources to maintain himself and his dependants on the standards laid down by the National Assistance Regulations.

Mr. Cooper: Remembering the great importance of this subject, and in view of what has been said to the House, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the method of publicising these conditions, because I am certain that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are unaware that they can get these refunds?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am at the moment considering with the National Assistance Board how best to make sure that there is complete understanding of where entitlement arises.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is it not perfectly clear from the Minister's reply that to get a refund applicants will have to reveal the most personal details about their income and expenditure, and that to get back the 2s., or whatever they spend, they will have to submit to the full process of the means test?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the National Assistance Board's handling of these matters, based on a good many years' experience, is calculated to cause the least embarrassment and difficulty.

Mr. John Hall: Is it not clear from the Answer to this and previous Questions that there is a great deal of confusion and no little anxiety about the way this will operate? Would it not be much easier, and indeed much fairer, if all those below a certain level of income were exempt from paying prescription charges? No doubt that could be done by the P.A.Y.E. code.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That question goes far beyond my responsibility in replying for the National Assistance Board, and is, I think, a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Strachey: Could not the Minister tell us whether it will not cost more than 2s. to make the means test on these applicants? Is it not therefore a very cumbrous system?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What is important is that hardship should be prevented.

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many applications to the National Assistance Board in Glasgow over each of the past three years for refund of National Health Service prescription charges were refused.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In an area approximating to the City of Glasgow, 64, 37 and 28, respectively.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the customary number of weeks for which an insured person is expected to be on sickness benefit before being considered by the National Assistance Board as qualifying for refund of National Health Service prescription charges.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is no such customary period.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that a person on unemployment benefit has to be unemployed for three or four weeks before he has any chance of getting National Assistance? Is the same idea—whether or not by regulation—in operation, or might it be in operation, in respect of the prescription charges?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While not accepting the statement of the position made by the hon. Gentleman in respect of unemployment benefit, it is the fact that there is no such restriction of any kind in respect of prescription charge refunds. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman may be aware, under the provisions of the National Health Service Acts, 1951 and 1952, these refunds can be made even to people in full work, who are otherwise statutorily debarred from National Assistance.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many applications to the National Assistance Board in Lanarkshire over each of the past three years for refund of National Health Service prescription charges were refused.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In an area approximating Lanarkshire, 22, 23, and 13, respectively.

Mr. Lawson: Does this not indicate how many people other than those on National Assistance dare apply for the


refund of those prescription charges? This is clear evidence of the feeling of humiliation many people have when they make application. The evidence here is that people not on National Assistance are almost not applying at all.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: On the contrary, amongst those who applied not being on National Assistance there were in the last two years refunds in respect of about 3,200 and 1,400 prescription items.

Mr. Reynolds: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will publish a White Paper showing the assessment scales and disregards operated by the National Assistance Board in deciding upon applications for refund of National Health Service prescription charges made by persons not currently on National Assistance supplementation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. The scales and disregards are set out in the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations and the Disregard of Assets Order, 1959, and in the leaflets published by the Board.

Mr. Reynolds: Does not the Minister realise that he has named three separate items, one of which was in the plural, namely, leaflets? Would it not be a good idea to simplify the matter—it has not been simplified by his answers, or lack of them, this afternoon—by publishing one document dealing with the whole procedure and all the disregards?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), I am considering with the Board whether any improvement in publicity arrangements is possible. From the point of view of making the provisions clearly known to people eligible for the refund, a White Paper is almost the worst expedient.

Mrs. Braddock: While the Minister is considering the question of publicity, will he consider the position of those who cannot pay for the prescription at all? A prescription may be given to a person upon the very day before he draws his pension. Under what circumstances does the Assistance Board pay for prescriptions before they are purchased?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are arrangements for doing that in cases of

need. However, before answering fully on the precise nature of the arrangements, I should be grateful if the hon. Lady will table a Question.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many applications to the National Assistance Board in Aberdeen over each of the past three years for refund of National Health Service prescription charges were refused.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In an area approximating to the City of Aberdeen, eight, five and three, respectively.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady state what the reasons were in each case and what alternative provision was made for the unfortunate people to whom refund was refused?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I cannot tell the hon. and learned Gentleman without notice, but he is assuming that they were necessarily within the National Assistance standards.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what number of applications to the National Assistance Board in Paisley, Greenock, and the county area of Renfrewshire over each of the past four years for refund of National Health Service prescription charges was refused.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In Renfrewshire, which includes Paisley and Greenock, 14, 9, 12 and 8, respectively.

Dr. Mabon: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that some doctors in the area know of cases where the National Assistance Regulations, either in the past or as at present, do not take account of the chronicity of the illness from which a person is suffering? That is an added argument for suggesting that some consideration should be given to this element in phrasing the instructions to the National Assistance Board.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The Board is concerned with the level of income. These questions have shown that there have been very few refusals, and a not inconsiderable number in all these years of people who have drawn prescription charges whilst not normally on National Assistance.

Dr. Mabon: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what were the numbers and amounts of National Health Service prescript ion charges refunded by the National Assistance Board in Paisley, Greenock and Renfrewshire to persons not in receipt of National Assistance supplementation during each of the past four years.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: As I have already explained, figures can be given only for 1959 and 1960. They are, for the whole county of Renfrewshire, including the two burghs named, respectively, £70 and £90 representing 1,400 and 1,800 prescription items.

Dr. Mahon: Will the Parliamentary Secretary be kind enough to inform her right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance or her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that a tremendous burden of administration is being handed over to the National Assistance Board in these areas, which already carry a heavy burden by virtue of the high and deep-seated unemployment there? Will not she consider arguing the case for making a register of the chronic sick, which would exempt people automatically without recourse to National Assistance investigation?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said and pass it on to my right hon. Friend.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what arrangements the National Assistance Board has made to refund the new prescription charges for those living on limited pensions, whether public or private, and on interest on savings and to what extent an assumed rent allowance will also be included in the disregards.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the general question as to the basis on which these refunds are and will continue to be made, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper). Rent or comparable outgoings and the normal disregards are of course allowed for by the Board's officer in making his assessment.

Dame Irene Ward: Arising out of the examples given by my right hon. Friend

the Minister of Health in the last debate, am I right in assuming that people not paying Income Tax on their basic income, their earnings being too low to attract Income Tax, would in the main be permitted to have their prescription charges refunded?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should not like to tax my mathematical ingenuity by making, whilst standing at the Dispatch Box, an equalisation or balance between the Inland Revenue law and the National Assistance scales.

Mr. Swingler: Why is it not possible for the Minister to state a figure of net income after payment of rent and rates below which it will be automatic for people to get refunds?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Even rent and rates do not resolve the matter. In cases where there are children the Assistance scales vary considerably in accordance with their ages. That affects the calculation. There is also the element of special needs. I can certainly give examples, but they would be based on, say, half a dozen assumptions over and above those included in any Question on the Order Paper today.

Dame Irene Ward: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there is very great anxiety about all these matters among all sections of the community? Is he considering any scheme for altering the pattern which may help those people above the National Assistance level who come into the category of small fixed incomes?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am replying on these matters today on behalf of the National Assistance Board. If I understand my hon. Friend aright, what she says seems to be within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the onerous burden put upon applicants and the officers of the National Assistance Board in establishing need in these cases, would it not be much better now to scrap the whole lot? Will not the administrative charges by far outweigh the saving the Treasury hopes to make?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the administrative costs must be practically the same whether the refund is 1s. or 2s., the effect


of the change must be to reduce the proportion of the costs of administration to the total refunded.

Mr. Jay: Do not all the Minister's answers show that the whole arrangement is extremely complicated and will be very difficult for ordinary people to understand in practice?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but ordinary people have succeeded in understanding it in practice for many years past.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many refunds of National Health Service prescription charges have been made by the National Assistance Board in East Ham during each of the last three years.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is not possible to give figures of the number of refunds made in particular localities, as complete records are not kept by locality for the refunds made at Post Offices, which are the very great majority.

Mr. Prentice: Without figures of this kind, how can the Government possibly claim that they are taking effective measures to avoid hardship resulting from the Health Service charges, or is it that the situation is simply that Conservatives do not care?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member is making a false assumption. Anyone already receiving National Assistance gets back the charges automatically. It would be a sheer bureaucratic waste of time and money to sort out repayments which were automatically made to those applying to the Post Office— [HON. MEMBERS: "To whom?"] —to beneficiaries already receiving National Assistance and who draw that assistance through the Post Office. On showing their current National Assistance book, they will automatically draw back the prescription charges and they will be paid at the Post Office on showing their books.

Mr. Prentice: Will not the hon. Lady agree that every hon. Member is entitled to know how this matter affects his constituents? Otherwise, how are hon. Members on the hon. Lady's side to be able to judge whether this is good legislation?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Some 12 million prescription receipts are put through the Post Office by people who are currently on National Assistance. Hon. Members have been suggesting that the procedure should be simplified, and this is the simplest method—the production of a receipt so that one can obtain a refund when one is on National Assistance.

National Assistance

Mr. Houghton: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what was the nature of the reply made by the National Assistance Board to the representations sent to them from recipients of National Assistance whose net increase in income is less than the increases being given to National Insurance beneficiaries from April next.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While I do not know what particular representations the hon. Member has in mind, I have little doubt that in any reply on this subject which the Board has sent, it has drawn attention to the fact that when account is taken of the increase in National Assistance scale rates, etc., in September, 1959, the increase above the January, 1958, level in April next in the income of a person receiving National Assistance will, other things being equal, be somewhat higher than in the case of a person in receipt only of National Insurance benefits.

Mr. Houghton: The representations I have received have been complaints that the increases are not enough. In reply I have said that I agree with them and they are not enough. I thought the National Assistance Board might have thought of the same answer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman's Question related to representations made not to him, but to the National Assistance Board.

Food Standards

Mrs. Hart: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will institute a sample inquiry, to be carried out after the National Health Service Contributions Bill has taken effect, into the standards of diet of old-age pensioners, the chronic sick, and the families of low wage-earners.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. As the hon. Lady is no doubt aware, a continuous inquiry into the food consumption of all sections of the population is undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the National Food Survey.

Mrs. Hart: Is not the Minister aware that the inquiries carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture are utterly inadequate as they relate to lower income groups, old-age pensioners and the chronic sick? In order to determine how far new needs have been created by Government policy in regard to the Health Service, is it not the Minister's duty to ensure that an adequate survey is carried out?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: First, the hon. Lady is quite wrong in what she said about the Food Survey, which makes special and separate investigation into what are classified as "pensioner households". As regards the second part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, the Measure referred to in her Question does not affect either pensioners or the chronic sick, who do not pay these contributions anyway.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Generating Costs

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power what is the average cost of electricity generated per unit at the most modern coal-fired power stations; and what the cost is expected to be at the nuclear power station to be built at Wylfa, Anglesey.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): Depending on the distance from the coalfields of coal-fired stations to be commissioned at about the same time as the proposed nuclear station at Wylfa, the cost of conventional generation at base load seems likely to be between 0·5d. and 0·6d. a unit. It is too early to give a figure for Wylfa, as the tender specification has not yet been issued, but the cost is not expected to be above this range.

Mr. Ridley: Does that mean that we are already reaching the break-even point between conventional and nuclear power generation, or will do so at the station a: Wylfa when it is completed?

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. It does not mean quite that, because although the cost of generating or operating at nuclear stations may be below that at conventional stations, the capital cost of nuclear stations is very much higher. and the break-even point will not be reached for some time.

Non-Poisonous Gas

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Power if he will state approximately the time and expenditure it will take to make the supply of domestic gas non-poisonous; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): The Gas Council has estimated that it would cost about £100 million and would take a very long time to make towns gas virtually non-poisonous. The development plans of the industry are being based, to an increasing extent, on processes which give rise to a gas relatively free from carbon monoxide and the Gas Council has recommended all area boards to try to reduce the carbon monoxide content of the gas distributed to below 10 per cent.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the alarming number of deaths from leaking gas mains, particularly in older industrial areas such as Manchester and Salford? Since all that will be prevented when gas becomes entirely non-poisonous, does that not justify a bold and immediate plan, whatever the cost?

Mr. George: The number of deaths resulting from fractured mains is small, although it may get much publicity. But I agree that this is a serious matter, and urgent consideration is being and will be given to it by the Gas Council.

Mr. Skeet: Will my hon. Friend consider the advisability of using methane, or natural gas, which is non-toxic?

Mr. George: That is not covered by this Question.

Radioactive Contamination

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that the present arrangements for insurance against


damage caused by radioactive contamination are sufficient to cover all possibilities of such damage to persons, livestock, and materials; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George: Under the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959, operators of nuclear installations, other than the Atomic Energy Authority and Government Departments, must insure or provide cover by other approved means in the sum of £5 million. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that this sum is sufficient to cover all possibilities of damage by direct radiation or radioactive contamination which could arise from any foreseeable accident. If £5 million were insufficient to meet claims, the Act provides for Parliament to decide how the claims shall be met.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, no doubt, that insurance brokers and insurance companies are issuing this document, which I hold in my hand, to people affected in the areas of these sites where radioactive contamination could take place? Could he inform the House what arrangements are available at American bases, say at the Polaris base in Scotland, where radioactive waste and other effluents have to be disposed of? Is this covered by the Radioactive Substances Act? Are the present Government going to be responsible for that— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] —or can the hon. Gentleman tell the House that some arrangements have been made with the American Government— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] —Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter. I have been approached by a constituent.

Mr. Speaker: No one is complaining about the importance of this Question; the complaint is about the length of the supplementary question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can bring it to an end.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. I did not hear you pulling me up because of the length of my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I heard hon. Members opposite trying to pull me up. However, if you agree that they were right in what they were doing, I am prepared to sit down again.

Mr. Speaker: It is not as bad as that, but I hope the hon. Gentleman can bring his question to an end.

Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain constituents of mine want to know if there is the same cover for American bases, especially the Polaris base in Scotland, as there is for British bases which are covered by the 1959 Act which the hon. Gentleman mentioned?

Mr. George: Any question about the Polaris base is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. As it is a Government matter, the question of insurance does not arise.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance on this matter? I have been trying to get this Question answered for several weeks. I put it down to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, but I was informed that it was not possible for him to answer it and that inquiries about radioactive substances should be addressed to the Minister of Power who was responsible for such questions. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary should evade his responsibilities and shelve the question as he has done.

Mr. George: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of evading responsibilities, but there is no intention of assuming other people's responsibilities.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, from time to time Members put down Questions which are transferred to other Ministers. That is really a matter for the Table, but I cannot remember a precedent—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is under some illusion. Transfer is one of the matters which are not the responsibility of the Table.

Mr. Pannell: If I stand corrected on that, then it is a transfer within the Government itself. Apparently on this occasion the Question was not so transferred; it was allowed by the Government agency to stay with the Minister to whom it was addressed. It is an abuse against which you must protect us if Ministers are going to give such a reply as we have heard this afternoon. It is evading responsibility in such a situation.

Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman, of course, is quite wrong—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order was addressed to me. I should like to look textually at the hon. Member's question which seemed to relate to matters of insurance. There was a certain amount of noise and interruption, and I should like to look at it before I say anything about the subject matter. But this should be clear. Transfer, where transfer occurs—and here it did not—is never a matter for the Chair, nor is it within the power of the Chair to compel any Minister to answer a question if he chooses not to do so. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is not the point, and I mean no disrespect to you in saying that. I put down the Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. I was told at the Table Office, after the officers there had investigated very fully and had gone to great pains to satisfy themselves as to the correctness of the procedure, that the Question ought to be addressed to the Minister of Power. I accepted that. Today the Parliamentary Secretary says that it is a matter for the Prime Minister. That is the position we are in, and we must have some help.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that. I assure the hon. Member that I have got the point, but it still remains the fact that I cannot compel a Minister to answer a question if he does not want to do so.

Power Stations (Oil-Firing)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Power if he will give the number of oil-fired power stations which are in operation in the British Isles.

Mr. Wood: Twelve oil-fired steam stations or parts of stations are in operation in Great Britain.

Mr. Milne: Does the Minister realise that this is one more than was operating in 1959? What steps is he likely to take to ensure that the ones suitable for conversion are converted to coal-firing at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Wood: It would be an unwise step to convert to coal stations at present

using oil at a time when demand for coal is larger than the amount of coal being produced.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Prices

Mr. Eden: asked the Minister of Power by how much the pithead price of coal has risen since nationalisation; and what percentage of this rising price has been due to increased wages for the miners.

Mr. Wood: On average, proceeds from sales at the pithead have risen by 45s. 5d. a ton. About 46 per cent. of this represents increased labour costs.

Miners

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Power in what areas there is a shortage of mineworkers; and in what types of job.

Mr. Wood: Shortage of mineworkers is mainly confined to the Midlands, Yorkshire and parts of South Wales. Vacancies exist for juveniles, for mechanics and electricians and for underground workers generally.

Mr. Boyden: Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to remedy the shortages?

Mr. Wood: The steps being taken are a resumption of recruitment from June, 1960, and, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, the rate of wastage, which was then going up very quickly, slowed up in the last half of 1960 and is now about static.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in order to obtain sufficient recruits the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force have substantially raised rates of pay? Will he advise the National Coal Board to take a leaf out of the Services' book?

Mr. Wood: I think the National Coal Board has already taken that leaf.

Supplies

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Power in what varieties of coals there are now shortages.

Mr. Wood: I am told by the Board that the supply position varies from place


to place. In some places there are particular coals, such as certain South Wales boiler fuels, for which the Board cannot at present meet the full demand. It can usually supply customers for whom these coals are essential, and offer adequate substitutes to others.

Mr. Boyden: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that the number of pit closures is being reconsidered?

Mr. Wood: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the position in South Wales and the closure of anthracite pits. The need for scarce fuels must be balanced extremely carefully against the high cost of getting them.

Sir G. Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend give any hope that the shortage of scarce fuels, such as anthracite grains, will be overcome?

Mr. Wood: The position should improve when the Board's new mines in South Wales at Cynheidre and Abernant come into production. They are already producing, but their production will be considerably increased.

National Coal Board (Revenue Deficit)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power, what is the accumulated revenue deficit of the National Coal Board to date.

Mr. Wood: The accumulated deficit was £63·5 million at 30th June, 1960. Figures for the Board's accounting year ending 31st December, 1960, will be available when the Accounts are published.

Mr. Ridley: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not agree to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer putting this burden on the shoulders of the taxpayer at any stage?

Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend had better direct his Question to my right hon. and learned Friend.

HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING

Mr. Boardman: asked the hon. Member for Holland with Boston, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee,

whether, in view of difficulties arising from staffing arrangements in the catering department and particularly in the Members' Tea Room during the all-night sitting of 15th-16th February, he proposes any alterations in the arrangements for future sittings extending into the night.

Mr. Peyton: asked the hon. Member for Holland with Boston, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee (1) what steps he intends to take to improve the catering arrangements during all-night sittings;
(2) if there have been any losses of staff as a result of their being required to work excessive hours.

Mr. Gower: asked the hon. Member for Holland with Boston, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee if he is satisfied with the arrangements made for staff to deal with late and all-night sittings; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Herbert Butcher: This matter is being referred by me to the Kitchen Committee, which meets on Wednesday, for urgent and careful attention. The main difficulty when so many other positions in the catering trade are available is to attract staff of the right type who are prepared to work under circumstances where there are no fixed hours for finishing duties or, on the other hand, no certainty of regular overtime. Approximately twenty-five persons interviewed for positions on the staff of the Department have declined such terms of employment. It is considered that the long and irregular hours have been the main reason for the resignation of at least six members of our staff.
The Department increasingly relies on certain members of its staff, many of whom have been with us over a number of years and have developed a strong sense of loyalty to this House, to maintain facilities for Members. It is hoped the services of the Department will be satisfactorily maintained should the House decide to sit late on any day this week.
The Committee will, I am sure, give the most urgent attention to this matter


at its forthcoming meeting and it would be wrong of me to anticipate any decision it may make.

Mr. Boardman: Is it likely that the department will attract new staff? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that last Thursday girls in the catering department were on their feet for 21 hours, excluding meal times? Is it not impossible to get people to work in those conditions? When the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee pays homage to the loyalty of the staff, will he not agree that conditions of that sort are just exploitation of the staff and that if such conditions were found outside the House hon. Members would be the first roundly to condemn any employer who imposed them?

Sir H. Butcher: I am glad that the hon. Member has referred to the splendid services rendered by members of the staff. It is a fact that no fewer than three members of the staff suffered from extreme exhaustion during the last all-night sitting. One of the women was sent home by taxi and another returned for work only this morning. I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that the Kitchen Committee is responsible to the House for discharging its duties to hon. Members but is also conscious of its duty to behave as a good employer. At times it finds it extremely difficult to reconcile its different duties.

Mr. Gower: In view of the fact that at least one person had to work excessive hours for two all-night sittings, can my hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to get substitutes for these people in these circumstances? Secondly, can he confirm that a number of staff had to go home by taxi, and if so, were the taxi fares paid by the Kitchen Committee?

Sir H. Butcher: The Department would be most happy to recruit anybody of suitable calibre who is willing to accept the terms of employment. Indeed, we are urgently seeking such people with the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. With regard to the return of staff by taxi, I think I am right in saying that the one person who went home by taxi was somebody whose health was such that this was desirable. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case may be, the hour at which the House

rose was at a time when public transport was then available, and no special arrangements for the return of staff by taxi were provided.

Mr. Wilkins: If one of the major difficulties encountered by the Kitchen Committee in the recruitment of staff is, as the Chairman says, the long and irregular hours, would he and the Committee give some consideration to the possible enlistment of a permanent night staff, with guaranteed employment, at least until the Summer Recess?

Sir H. Butcher: I take note of that suggestion. We will certainly endeavour to implement it. On the other hand, I ought to point out that we already have nine vacancies on the present staff.

Mrs. Slater: Would the hon. Gentleman consider whether the reserve pool of staff who are normally used for special functions in this House and who, I am told, are brought in at week-ends could be used more effectively in giving the service to which Members are entitled?

Sir H. Butcher: Certainly all steps, including approaching members of the staff to whom the hon. Lady referred, have been made by the manager and the staff officers of the Department, but the fact remains that we cannot compel people to work here if more attractive conditions of employment are available elsewhere.

Mrs. Castle: Is not one of the difficulties in recruiting staff the fact that these loyal members of the staff to whom the Chairman has referred, and who, as he says, are so good in looking after hon. Members, are also expected to come in at week-ends to man-up these private functions on which this administration is relying in order to make a profit out of the catering department? Does not this mean that the staff have to work excessive hours at very poor rates of overtime, and, in addition, that the interests of hon. Members in being enabled to do their job properly are sacrificed to the profit-making activities of the catering department?

Sir H. Butcher: No, the hon. Lady has not fully considered the present method of operating the department. There is no suggestion of profit-making whatsoever. Unless Members had opportunities


available here for entertaining their own guests, it would be even more difficult to retain the services of the staff.
The hon. Lady further referred to inadequate rates of pay. May I assure her that it is not a question of finance at all. It is a question of hours and of irregularity and uncertainty that makes staffing problems so acute.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, TOGETHER WITH ESTIMATE FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 1961–62

(VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a sum, not exceeding £1,331,904,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, viz.: —

Civil Estimates


Class I



£


1. House of Lords
84,000


2. House of Commons
520,000


3. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
1,400,000


4. Privy Council Office
15,000


5. Lord Privy Seal
2,000


6. Post Office Ministers
2,500


7. Charity Commission
73,000


8. Civil Service Commission
215,000


9. Crown Estate Office
56,000


10. Exchequer and Audit Department
250,000


11. Friendly Societies Registry
38,500


12. Government Actuary
20,000


13. Government Hospitality
55,000


14. Royal Mint
10


15. National Debt Office
10


16. National Savings Committee
475,000


17. Public Record Office
55,000


18. Public Works Loan Commission
10


19. Royal Commissions, etc.
120,000


20. Secret Service
2,400,000


21. Miscellaneous Expenses Scotland:—
300,000


22. Scottish Home Department
570,000


23. Scottish Record Office
20,000

Class II



£


1. Foreign Service
8,250,000


2. Foreign Office Grants and Services
8,700,00


3. British Council
1,285,000


4. Commonwealth Relations Office
1,750,000


5. Commonwealth Services
7,000,000


6. Oversea Settlement
48,000


7. Colonial Office
700,000


8. Colonial Services
13,000,000


9. Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)
8,500,000

10. Development and Welfare (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the High Commission Territories (Basutoland, Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland))
600,000


11. Commonwealth War Graves Commission
380,000

Class III



£


1. Home Office
1,973,000


2. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
4,045,000


3. Police, England and Wales
20,342,000


4. Prisons, England and Wales
6,500,000


5. Child Care, England and Wales
1,171,000


6. Carlisle State Management District
10


7. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
100,000


8. County Courts
240,000


9. Legal Aid Fund
1,000,000


10. Land Registry
10


11. Public Trustee
10


12. Law Charges
280,000


13. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
45,000


Scotland:—



14. Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)
160,000


15. Police
121,000


16. Prisons
610,000


17. Child Care
165,000


18. State Management Districts
10


19. Law Charges and Courts of Law
158,000


20. Department of the Registers of Scotland
10


Ireland:—



21. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
29,000


22. Irish Land Purchase Services
590,000

Class IV



£


1. Ministry of Education
35,100,000


2. British Museum
363,000


3. British Museum (Natural History)
190,000


4. Imperial War Museum
20,590


5. London Museum
16,600


6. National Gallery
155,000


7. Tate Gallery
64,000


8. National Maritime Museum
29,000


9. National Portrait Gallery
17,000


10. Wallace Collection
15,000


11. Grants for Science and the Arts
1,400,000


12. Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain
38,000,000


13. Broadcasting
11,200,000


Scotland:—



14. Scottish Education Department
5,550,000


15. National Galleries
43,000


16. National Museum of Antiquities
13,000


17. National Library
43,100

Class V



£


1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government
3,650,000


2. Housing, England and Wales
25,000,000


3. Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
186,650,000


4. Ministry of Health
9,900,000


5. National Health Service, England and Wales
188,500,000


6. Medical Research Council
1,800,000


7. Registrar General's Office
2,000,000


8. War Damage Commission Scotland:—
125,000


9. Department of Health
2,100,000


10. National Health Service
22,500,000


11. Housing
9,300,000


12. Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues
30,275,000


13. Registrar General's Office
306,000

Class VI



£


1. Board of Trade
2,200,000


2. Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports and Industrial Efficiency and Trading Services)
3,600,000


3. Board of Trade (Former Strategic Stocks)
180,000


4. Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)
10,000,000


5. Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements
54,600


6. Export Credits
10


7. Export Credits (Special Guarantees)
10


8. Ministry of Labour
8,079,000


9. Ministry of Aviation
75,000,000


10. Civil Aviation
1,000,000


11. Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing Services) (Repayment)
3,000,000

Class VII



£


1. Ministry of Works
2,465,000


2. Houses of Parliament Buildings
155,000


3. Public Buildings, &amp;c., United Kingdom
10,583,000


4. Public Buildings Overseas
1,434,000


5. Royal Palaces
269,000


6. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
431,000


7. Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
432,000


8. Rates on Government Property
8,800,000


9. Stationery and Printing
6,500,000


10. Central Office of Information
1,600,000

Class VIII



£


1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
7,100,000


2. Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies
90,000,000


3. Agricultural and Food Services
3,800,000


4. Food (Strategic Reserves)
800,000


5. Fishery Grants and Services
2,900,000


6. Surveys of Great Britain, etc.
1,230,000

£


7. Agricultural Research Council
2,015,000


8. Nature Conservancy
250,000


9. Development Fund
600,000


10. Forestry Commission
4,200,000


Scotland:—



11. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
12,000,000


12. Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
1,100,00

Class IX



£


1. Ministry of Transport
1,446,000


2. Roads, etc., England and Wales
40,000,000


3. Transport (British Transport Commission)
34,333,000


4. Transport (Shipping and Special Services)
332,000


5. Ministry of Power
750,000


6. Ministry of Power (Services)
450,000


7. Office of the Minister for Science
30,000


8. Atomic Energy
47,000,000


9. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
5,245,000


Scotland:—



10. Roads, etc.
5,932,000

Class X



£


1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances
8,100,000


2. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
2,500,000


3. War Pensions, etc
38,250,000


4. National Insurance and Family Allowances
118,800,00


5. National Assistance Board
61,800,000


6. Pensions, etc. (India, Pakistan and Burma)
2,900,000


7. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
400,000


8. Post Office Superannuation and Retired Allowances
10


Total for Civil Estimates
1,298,694,000

Revenue Departments



£


1. Coustoms and Excise
7,000,000


2. Inland Revenue
20,000,000


Total for Revenue Departments
27,000,000


Ministry of Defence
6,210,000


Total for Civil Estimates and Estimates for together with Estimate for the Ministry of Defence
1,331,904,000

Orders of the Day — FUEL AND POWER

3.31 p.m.

r. Ray Gunter: I beg to move, That Item Class IX, Vote 5 (Ministry of Power), be reduced by £1,000.
It is some time since the House had an opportunity to debate future supplies of energy, and I hope that sufficient time has passed for hon. Members on the benches opposite to do some meditating so that we may be relieved today of the half-baked gibes that, when the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party discuss a national fuel policy, what they really have in mind is not the well-being of the nation, but the safeguarding of the vested interests of the miners in the industry. I hope that there will be no suggestion today that the miners' concern in the present situation is born of anything like a Luddite outlook. The miners' history is a bit too raw for them to be worried much about a Luddite background.
As the child of a few generations of miners, I have never yet known a miner who, when the alarm clock went at half-past four in the morning, went into a delirium of joy at the thought of going down the mine; nor, indeed, have I ever found one obsessed by a great ambition to ensure that his son or grandson should work in the pits. I hope, therefore, that we shall today approach this subject on a much wider basis and that we shall accept, on both sides, the fact that this country and the world face a serious problem as a result of new developments in sources of energy.
It may be stating the obvious to say that at present the whole complex structure of modern industry is virtually dependent upon the carbon deposits of 27,000,000 nature, coal, oil and natural gas, but what, we sometimes forget in our arguments and disputes is that these deposits are non-renewable. It is sometimes thought, perhaps, that those who mention the nonrenewability of our carbon deposits are, somehow, melodramatic and a bit feverish; but, nevertheless, we must bear in mind, in 1961, the fact that the carbon resources of the world are finite.
It is of paramount importance that the nation should assess both the dangers and the hopes not of the next five years,


but of the next three or four decades. This is not a long period. I suggest that if, at the end of the First World War, only just over forty years ago, the advice of the experts in the industry had been heeded, we should not have found ourselves in much of the troubles which affect our industrial life today. I emphasise at the outset that there is a great problem facing the nation and the world, a problem which will grow in intensity between now and the turn of the century.
A very interesting statement was made by Professor Robinson, of Cambridge. and Mr. Daniel, of the Ministry of Power, in a paper submitted to the International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, wherein it was said:
It will … be apparent that, even if we make conservative estimates of economic growth and of the future increases in the demand for energy, the world is not far distant, measured in the units of time in which we think of the history of nations and even of the lives of individuals, from the moment when, in the absence of a new source, scarcity of fuel will begin to create serious i problems.… Economic development s largely a matter of adding to the horsepower available to assist the peoples who at present are poor because of the lack of it. There is no task"&amp;3x2014;
these scientists went on to say—
more important than to ensure that the dramatic advance of the human race over the past 200 years is not reversed over the next 200 years because of the exhaustion of the fuels which gave the opportunity for it.
The truth of that statement is beyond doubt. We must accept that the concentrated carbon deposits of the world are finite, and, as has been said, that they represent the product of not a very large multiplier applied to the quantities currently being consumed each year. Therefore, the nonrenewability of coal, oil and natural gas must enter into our consideration of the future of our industrial life. I emphasise that I speak not of the next five or ten years, but of the future well-being of the country in the 1980s, the 1990s and at the turn of the century.
The question may be asked: will the need for natural carbon cease altogether owing to a new source of energy, nuclear fission, becoming available? I believe that the experts are generally agreed that it is simply fanciful to imagine the total displacement of coal, oil and natural

gas by nuclear energy. It is now expected that, if all goes well, the displacement of fossil fuels by nuclear energy in ten years will be only about 1 per cent. of the world total. The United States Atomic Energy Commission puts the maximum technically plausible role of nuclear fuel in industry in the year 2000, on certain assumptions, at about 15 per cent. It may well be that, in the next century, nuclear energy will play a very formidable part, but it is not to be doubted that, for at least half a century, or even for seventy-five years. we must look to the sources to which we look today.
I am one who believes that we dare not lag behind in the development of nuclear energy. This nation may have to take abnormal risks in this matter. Perhaps no sacrifice will be too great to ensure that our scientists and technicians are available in sufficient numbers so that, when succeeding generations face these problems, the nation will be in a position to meet them. At present, I submit that there is no substitute for natural carbon as a cheap source of heat and energy. The day may come—it probably will—when there is a substitute, but it would be the height of folly to abandon as useless substantial resources of natural carbon at present.
The other paradox that seems to arise at present is that while most of the world's concentrated deposits are of coal, by far the largest increase in the world's fuel requirements is being met by oil. I have read carefully the report of O.E.E.C., that by the President of the United States and those of other organisations. and it seems to be the conclusion of many of the greatest experts in the world in this field that if the present dramatically high level of oil consumption goes on we cannot avoid the exhaustion of the oil reserves by the end of this century or before. We hope that our industrial tempo will increase, and we hope to see the rapid development of the under-developed countries and their industrialisation, but let us not shrink from the fact that if this goes on at the present rate, by the turn of the century or before we might well be faced with a shortage of oil.
One of America's leading geologists states categorically that it is probable that the United States demand for oil by 1975 will be more than double the


United States production, and that the rest of the world will be dependent largely on Middle East production. Indeed, there are many of the world's experts in energy problems who say that if the phenomenal growth in oil consumption goes on oil might well not outlive this century, so that there could be a great scramble for oil, with all its dangers for any nation that does not possess indigenous fuel resources of its own.
To make one more quotation, the chairman of the American Association of Oil Geologists has quoted a figure of an ultimately recoverable reserve of 270,000 million tons of oil. Proved reserves are 40,000 million tons, but 270,000 million tons would not sustain an annual rate of growth of 6 or 7 per cent. for more than a few decades. There is talk of new oilfields, and of the Sahara oilfield, but let us accept the least conservative figure of reserve quoted. It is said that the reserves are 1,500 million tons of oil, but let us remember that that is only one and a half years of oil consumption at the present rate. The most serious students of the energy problem now seem to confirm that the only hope of maintaining for a long period our ever-increasing industrial life, which supports our modern civilisation, is with coal, looking beyond the short span of life of oil.
It may be argued, though I hope that no one will argue it here—I have seen it argued by the oil companies—that the next generation must solve its own problems, "Let us take what may be the immediate advantage of oil, and, forty years' hence, turn back to coal". That is quite unworthy. We have a duty to the next generation and to the generations that follow it, and we also have a duty to the nation to ensure that the life of this nation is not placed in jeopardy by our failure to envisage the future. As Sir James Bowman once said, we cannot do this sort of thing.
Coal mining means entering upon a battle with nature, and it is not a battle into which we can go and out just as we like. In coal mining, once you close a colliery you lose the resources you had set out to exploit.
Only by tremendous sacrifice and at tremendous cost, thirty or forty years' ahead, could we try to bring that abandoned pit into production, and at a time

when, maybe, the need is very great. Large sections of our mining traditions would have gone, and our mining communities would be dispersed.
Therefore, I submit to the House that it is our national duty, on whatever side we may sit, to think carefully and to plan wisely about the preservation of our most valuable and essential asset—our coal reserves. It is imperative that this industry, which is passing through a most difficult period, should be kept in good heart and good health, so that it may meet the very great problems and requirements that will be placed upon it in the future.
I do not underestimate the Minister's difficulties in this matter. If we are to guard and conserve in the national interest our coal assets, so often we find that it is not compatible with the most profitable operation in free competition. If the Minister supports a national policy, and carefully seeks to ensure that the resources of this nation are marshalled for thirty or forty years hence, he may well come into conflict with so many of his hon. Friends, whose doctrinal obsessions demand that the market criterion is the only fuel policy. That is wrong, and I believe that it would be a tragedy for the nation and for the Government unless we can carefully and wisely plan ahead. If the nation is to remain strong and powerful in the counsels of the nation, it is not only the immediate that must concern us, but must be thinking of planning well into the future.
I believe that the future rôle of coal is great, that our national interests demand long-term planning, and that may mean some sacrifices at present so that the future can be healthy. It is necessary to look at the present state of our energy supplies, and particularly at our primary source, which is the mining industry. I state the facts as I see them, and I think that the deductions will be obvious. The coal mining industry has had a fairly rough ride. It has been up at the top and down in the valley. The situation now facing the industry is a complete reversal of that which prevailed throughout the postwar period, when the industry, in the first post-war decade, was faced with an ever-growing demand for coal. Indeed, coal consumption rose from 178 million tons in 1945 to 218 million tons


in 1956, an increase of 40 million tons—23 per cent. in eleven years. The labour force increased by something less than 1 per cent. and increased production was achieved primarily by higher productivity, overall output per man shift and at the coal face, both of which rose by over 20 per cent. That was the position of this industry for eleven years following 1945.
Then came the change which has shaken the confidence of the mining industry. It came in 1957, when inland consumption fell by 5 million tons, from 218 million tons to 213 million tons, and exports fell by 2 million tons. In 1958, there was a further and still more drastic fall in coal demand, when inland consumption fell by 10 million tons to 203 million tons and exports fell by 3 million tons to 5 million tons. This drastic fall in coal demand was repeated in 1959, when inland consumption fell by a further 12½ million tons and exports fell by over half a million tons.
This is the position that has to be borne in mind when we talk about confidence in the industry. In the three years 1957–58–59, there was a total fall in coal demand of 33 million tons, or 15 per cent., of which 27 million tons was in inland consumption and 5 million tons in exports. This drastic decline in coal consumption over the last three years has, naturally, been reflected in increasing coal stocks, since, although there have been cut-backs in coal production, the fall in production has been much less than the fall in consumption. Undistributed coal stocks rose from 3 million tons at the beginning of 1957 to 8 million tons at the beginning of 1958, to 19½ million tons at the beginning of 1959 and to 36 million tons at the beginning of 1960.
The important thing to which I wish to draw attention is the effect upon the industry of those three years. There was a cut-back in production of 30 million tons—from 224 million tons in 1957 to 194 million tons in 1960. There was a fall in manpower in the industry of nearly 130,000 men—from 712,000 at the beginning of 1958 to 583,000 at the end of 1960. When the Minister writes his notes and talks to the miners about the necessity for confidence, and states that they must reject pessimism in the industry, I beg him to remember that it is the most difficult thing in the world
—I know this bitterly from my experience in the railways—to tell men to have confidence in their industry and to believe that it has a great future when manpower contracts at such a rate. It may be necessary, but, nevertheless, it is something which destroys the morale of men.
In the past three years there has been the closure of 136 pits. I agree that 83 of them were closed because of exhaustion, but the significant thing is that 53 were closed for economic reasons. As I have said, one cannot close a pit and reopen it just as one wishes. In the light of our pressing demands in future years, it may be that we shall regret the closing of uneconomic pits, as they are called.
There has been a revision of the National Coal Board's plan for 1965, with a reduction in coal output from a proposed 240 million tons to 200 to 215 million in 1965. All this adds up to a decline in the confidence of the miners and leads those engaged in the industry to think that the state of dereliction, not only in the industry itself but in the mining communities, will proceed at a fairly rapid rate.
What are the reasons for the fall in consumption? Between 1956 and 1958 there was industrial stagnation and recession. The recession hit hardest those industries which were the largest consumers of coal—iron and steel. Also, there was increased competition from alternative fuels, particularly oil, about which I shall say a word later. That was the situation until we came to 1960, when there was a marked change in the demand for coal. After a fall of 33 million tons in the preceding three years, there was an increase in 1960 compared with 1959 of nearly 9 million tons to a figure of 203 million tons. Production in 1960 was 194 million tons. It was, therefore, well below consumption. There was a substantial reduction in stocks of about 7 million tons.
There is no reason why anybody should be dissatisfied with 1960. Indeed, there is every reason for satisfaction, as long as we get the facts in their right perspective and keep a sense of proportion about what happened in 1960. Whereas inland coal consumption rose by about 4 per cent., the average level


of industrial production rose by considerably more, while fuel oil consumption rose by nearly 30 per cent. and fuel oil imports rose by about 35 per cent.
For 1961, the Board's programme aims at a reduction in production from a planned 195 million in 1960 to 192 million tons in 1961. It thinks that coal consumption is likely to be about 200 million tons in 1961, which, if it is achieved, will mean a further reduction in coal stocks. But the crucial question is—this is the thing which bothers my friends in the industry—whether the improvement in 1960 marked a permanent change in the fuel and power situation, or whether it was due to exceptional circumstances. It is no good the Minister getting dewy-eyed about 1960 and telling the miners that if they keep their eyes on 1960 everything will be all right. The miners have had long experience and do not take one year as a criterion for the future of their industry.
Having, I hope factually, put the position of the coal mining industry since 1945, I wish to say a word about oil and its effect on the energy supplies of this country. Britain's total energy requirements for 1960 were about 264 million tons of coal equivalent. About three-quarters were supplied by coal and about one-quarter by oil. Between 1948 and 1956, before there were any signs of crisis in the industry, the consumption of oil increased by 100 per cent, while the consumption of coal increased by 12 per cent.
In 1948, out of total energy requirements of 212 million tons, coal supplied 91 per cent. and oil 9 per cent. But in 1956, out of total energy requirements of 253 million tons, coal supplied only 85 per cent. and oil supplied 15 per cent. However, while coal was supplying a smaller proportion of total energy requirements in 1956 than in 1948, the amount of coal consumed had increased considerably. It had risen from 192 million tons to 214 million tons.
This change in the pattern of fuel consumption between 1956 and 1959 can, therefore, be looked at in one sense as merely a continuation of the previous trend—a steady and fairly rapid increase in the use of oil over a considerable number of years. But there was one vital difference in those years. Total energy requirements actually fell between 1956

and 1959 because of industrial stagnation and recession instead of steadily rising as in the previous decade. Therefore, the increasing use of oil in the last three years means that oil has been replacing coal instead of supplementing it as in previous years.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's figures in any way. The majority of them have, in fact, been published. But there are two deficiencies in his argument. First, the fall in fuel requirements for specific industries is largely attributable to increasing fuel efficiency, which all of us support. Secondly, he omits to mention in his statistical digest the fact that his energy requirement figures include the whole of the needs of transportation, both by rail and road. That is the major reason for the increase in the use of oil.

Mr. Gunter: If the hon. Gentleman will let me pursue my gentle way, I will come to that point.
I repeat that, out of total enegry requirements in 1956, 214 million tons, or 85 per cent., were supplied by coal and 38 million tons, or 15 per cent., by oil. In 1959, out of total energy consumption of 245 million tons, 187 million tons, or 76 per cent., were supplied by coal and 23 per cent. by oil. Last year, of the total energy consumption of 264 million tons about 196 million tons, or 75 per cent., was supplied by coal and 66 million tons, or 25 per cent., was supplied by oil.
I turn now to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). It should be made clear that much of the oil consumption is not competitive with coal. In 1959, the amount of oil used as fuel was 56 million tons coal equivalent. Of this, about 31 million tons was competitive with coal, of which 23½ million tons was fuel oil.
If I may finish my statistical survey so that we get the facts right, I would add that between 1953 and 1960, fuel oil consumption rose by about 13½ million tons, or 23 million tons coal equivalent. While the increase was substantial between 1953 and 1957, the really big increase has come since 1957. From 1957 to 1958, fuel oil consumption increased by 3·6 million tons. Of the increase in consumption since 1953, only about one-half


has been met from United Kingdom refinieries. The remainder has come from increased imports of fuel oil, which have increased from less than 1 million tons in 1953 to nearly 7½ million tons last year.
The reasons for the increased competition from fuel oil are clear. In the post-war Britain, Governments have actually encouraged the use of oil because of the shortage of coal and the fear that this shortage would continue. In 1947, the tax on fuel oil which had been imposed in 1933 was removed. Circulars were sent by the Government to local authorities encouraging them to use oil. Fuel efficiency services were established and loans were made to firms which wanted to convert their heating equipment.
A second and major factor in the growth of fuel oil consumption over the last three years has been the conversion of about fourteen electricity generating stations from coal to oil. This has been done, not on grounds of efficiency nor because oil was cheaper, but was the result of a Government decision in 1955 because of the then coal shortage and the fear of its continuance.
No one can seriously argue that we can ruthlessly reduce our oil imports or oil consumption. What is required is a careful analysis of the choice between allowing the importation of oil heedlessly so that it causes irreparable damage to a national asset or the planning of imports and the use of oil so that our indigenous asset can be kept intact. That is the task for the Minister. I see nothing wrong in it. We do a great deal for agriculture because we regard it as of sufficient importance to be protected. Looking into the future, why should we not seek to protect, in a balanced and planned way, this great national asset of which we may be in such desperate need in the future?
There is another reason why the Government should carefully consider the question of oil imports. We are told that 1960 is likely to be the worst year since 1951 for our balance of payments. We are told that the deficit might be between £150 million and £170 million. Although the effects of the oil industry's operations upon the balance of payments are not revealed, all available evidence indicates that a substantial part of the balance of

payments deficit is attributable to the rapid growth of oil imports.
Between 1955 and 1960, the cost of oil imports rose, in round figures, by £240 million, while the receipts from exports and re-exports of oil products from the United Kingdom rose by £50 million. In other words, the visible trade balance for oil shows a net increase in imports of no less than £190 million. If the greater part of our oil imports were required to meet the needs of transport, they might be regarded as unavoidable. That, however, is not the case. During the past few years, by far the greater part of the increase in oil imports has been to increase the consumption of black oils—that is, oil for purposes other than transport.
Since 1947, the consumption of black oils has more than doubled. It is now well over 30 million tons coal equivalent. Over the same period, the consumption of other oils—that is, for transport—has risen by less than 50 per cent. to about 30 million tons. In other words, the great bulk of oil imports during recent years has been of oil which displaces our own indigenous fuel—coal. This adds an unnecessary burden to our balance of payments difficulties. At a time when it is of paramount importance to strengthen our balance of payments position, there is a case for the most careful thought by the Government to see what can be done concerning oil.
Even when the so-called invisible earnings are taken into account, there is little doubt that the operations of the oil industry result in a drain on our balance of payments which—perhaps the Minister will give the actual figures—may be in the region of £100 million a year. Therefore, I wish to point out the steps which we on this side feel should be taken. It is no good the Minister telling the miners that everything is all right and that there are no grounds for pessimism. The criterion of the market has an ugly ring in the mining communities. Their historic and sometimes bloody battles raged around this materialistic concept.
The industry must have confidence in itself. The Minister must give it a lead to establish confidence in the fact that it has a great future. I suggest, therefore, to the Minister and to the Government that they should immediately set a realistic minimum figure for coal production


for some years ahead, to let the miners know that there will be stability. This is the industry's major need, for, without a specific target that men can hold on to, the Coal Board will not be able to plan sensibly its investment and production programmes, nor will the crisis of lack of confidence that those working in the industry are now experiencing be overcome.
The target figure must be kept under constant review. It must be adjusted according to changing trends, such as, for example, the growth of energy requirements, fuel and power technology and long-term changes in the balance of payments position. The Ministry of Fuel and Power should publish an annual report assessing the current position and the policy changes that are required.
To come to what might be done almost immediately, since there is no great cost advantage in the use of oil, the Minister and the Government should turn their attention to dual-fired electricity generating stations. Those which now burn oil should be converted to the use of coal. Reasonable compensation to the oil companies should be met by the Minister. Opencast working should be reduced to the greatest practicable extent, this source being held as a reserve in case of sudden demand. If opencast contracts have to be broken, the Minister should assume responsibility for compensation, it being a condition of such payments that contractors work out with the unions concerned a scheme providing for compensation for any of the workers displaced.
There is one other point. Sometimes we are inclined to sit back and view with a measure of admiration the way in which the German economy has recovered since 1945. Strangely, the West Germans have not shrunk from meeting the problem that arises because of the impact of oil upon coal. They have deliberately imposed taxation upon heavy fuel oil at, I understand, a rate corresponding to about two guineas per ton. I understand that that figure is likely to be increased. I see no reason why our Government should not adopt a similar approach, so that we may guard and cherish our great national asset. An independent investigation should be conducted into the production cost of fuel oil to determine, as far as possible with

a joint product of this kind, how far the price of imported oil calls for action in anti-dumping legislation and to review impartially the price policies of the oil companies.
My last point on this is that the Government's policy should be urgently directed to increasing significantly the export of coal. In the interest both of the balance of payments and the stability of the mining industry, the Government should encourage the Coal Board to enter into overseas contracts which will guarantee supplies to purchasers and, in the longer term, higher priority should be given to scientific research in the fuel industries. In particular, the Ministry should co-ordinate the important work of new methods of coal gasification now being carried on by both the Gas Council and the Coal Board.
It is just 21 days ago that, in this House, a Minister of the Crown came to the Dispatch Box and unfolded a very tragic story to us. It has a very close resemblance to the present story, or it could have. We were then told that because of the state of transport in this country nearly £1,200 million had to be written off. Why? I do not indict any Government since the war, but the truth of that was that it started forty years ago.
In 1920, when the impact of the road haulage industry was first felt, experts advised Parliament and the industry to get together to consider the future development of transport, and to see what measure of co-ordination was necessary to plan and to work for forty years ahead. Three weeks ago, because their advice was cast away and we did not have the vision and courage in the 1920s and 1930s to move away from the market criteria, we had to throw hundreds of thousands of pounds down the drain. It would be a tragedy if, at this time, we failed to ensure that in forty years' time the great bounty which has been given to this nation was not in a proper position to play its part.
The railways declined, the morale of the workers went down, confidence went out of the industry and we are having to pay in terms of modernisation up to probably £2,000 million because it is now recognised that, in some form or another, we cannot do without railways. I plead with the Minister not to be


harried, not to wilt—not to be so much put out by great pressure from the hon. Member for Kidderminster and the rest of them—but to have vision in this matter and to tackle our responsibilities to generations to come.
This is an age of exhortation. These are days when Ministers go around the country exhorting the people to depart from the path of sin. It may be a far stretch to imagine that the Front Bench have any resemblance at all to the minor prophets but, nevertheless, it is interesting to read the words of exhortation that are recent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, a week or so ago, in Glasgow, said:
The Government must join with the employers and the trade unions in a combined operation, to arouse the people, stir them up, get them to break out of habits of thought, of processes and practices that are old-fashioned, restrictive, defeatist.
The trouble about exhortations today is that no one is taking any notice of them. The country is indifferent to them. I will tell the House why. The British are a great people and a strange people in many ways. Ninety-five per cent. do not take a lot of interest in their politicians. It is one of the greatest traits of the British character that they can always treat their politicians with great tolerance, but there is a time when they look to their politicians for leadership.
Before we start to exhort the people to do something, we have to make sure that they clearly understand the nature of the crisis. We must explain it to them so that they may know what we are getting at. Then they have to recognise that the leaders are on the path that will solve their problems in a crisis and, last of all, they have, in such circumstances, to recognise that they have men who can lead. Our indictment of the Government today is that they are without vision and without powers of leadership not only in this sphere, but in everything that they touch.

4.16 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): At the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), before he reached his rather more violent end, when he was talking about the supplies of energy in the world, I was reminded of confident forecasts

which used to be made in years past and which estimated that the world's supply of energy would be running rapidly to an end. I believe that one confident forecaster put a date to this debacle, that the world's supply of fuel would be running out in 1960. The hon. Gentleman has moved it on a bit, but he still thinks that we shall be in great trouble at the turn of the century.
The basis on which the hon. Member founded his argument was rather less clear, because I have not found any reputable forecaster who believes that the world's supply of energy is, in fact, in this "dicky" state. In fact, the proportion of proved reserves of oil, leaving aside coal for the moment, to world consumption over the last few years has continually been rising, although world consumption, as is evident to us all, has been rising very rapidly itself and behind these proved reserves lie vast quantities of oil still to be discovered. I see no basis at all for the forecast which the hon. Gentleman gave, that the end of energy supplies from abroad is, in fact, imminent.
The suggestions which the hon. Gentleman made at the end of his speech, and which I have heard similarly made on other occasions, appear to me, as I shall try to show, although he vigorously denied this charge at the beginning of his remarks, to be an attempt to apply some of the remedies of yesterday to the problems of today.
I am reminded of a similar attempt that I myself made, when I fell victim to influenza recently, to apply the remedies of yesterday to the problems of today. I tried to clear out some of the unused medicines in my medicine cupboard and apply them to a particular situation to which they did not appear to have great relevance. I made my medicine cupboard nice and tidy, but I think that I spent two extra days in bed that I could have avoided.
My life at the Ministry of Power has been quite short—I am speaking of the past fifteen months and making no prophecies for the future—but I am constantly amazed by the assumption on the part of those who seem to speak with authority that solutions which seemed to meet the situation even a few months ago are, without question, still appropriate today.
The foundation of the case which the hon. Gentleman has put before the Committee this afternoon is that we should fix a minimum figure of coal production in order to protect the industry and give it what he believes to be the necessary confidence if demand contracts; but the fact of the situation, which I shall say something about later, and which, indeed, he did recognise, is that demand for coal at present, not only in 1960 but at the present date in 1961, is running at a considerably higher rate than coal is now being produced. Therefore, there is some absence of realism in this frequent demand for some prescription by the Government of the industry's role and size.
I should like to say—because I think that this is fundamental to our discussion, and it has been fundamental to most of the discussions I have had in the last fifteen months about the fuel policy which this Government or any other Government should adopt—that, as I see it, there are, broadly, three possible alternative lines on which any Government can base their policy. The first line is to take some action to put restrictions on consumption of certain fuels and fix the size of the coal industry's market and be prepared to take further action if necessary to prevent the erosion of this market by competition.
I myself am convinced that there are three main objections to this policy. The first danger it would almost inevitably lead to would be higher energy costs which would result, I am certain, not only in reduction of competition, but if the coal were not consumed, result also very probably in the need to add stocks. The second is that there would be necessity at some time or other, whatever may be said against this by the Opposition or others, to impose some kind of control on consumption.
Thirdly—and this is, I think, most important, and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with it—such intervention would inevitably transfer from the coal industry and other nationalised industries to the Government a good deal of the responsibility for both short and long-term plans; and the main commercial and industrial de-

cisions would be taken by the Government and the commercial autonomy which the nationalisation Acts rightly aimed to give to the industries would to a very large extent be destroyed.
I am convinced that if the targets which it is suggested we should set are to have any value they must inevitably be fairly high, and they must inevitably, although the hon. Gentleman said that they could be reviewed from time to time, not be changed too frequently. I see that high targets which would be varied only with reluctance, would give a rigidity to the pattern of fuel consumption which, for a trading nation like ourselves, is, I think, only likely to bring disaster.
Those, to my mind, are the main objections to fixing a share of the market of the coal industry and to take steps to limit the competition with coal from other fuels.
Right at the other end of the picture there is a possible policy of unfettered competition, completely unrestricted freedom of choice. The difficulty here is that the market—and here, perhaps, I shall carry the hon. Gentleman with me—left entirely to itself, is unlikely to take account of considerations such as national security and the balance of payments. I am perfectly ready to admit that, and I am convinced myself that those considerations justify some bias in favour of indigenous fuels when they are available at economic cost and when they are equally suitable to meeting consumers' needs, rather than accepting a greater dependence on imports. Therefore, there are considerable objections, I believe, in pursuing a policy at the opposite extreme, one of unfettered competition, or a free for all.
I am convinced that the choice of a fuel policy must lie somewhere between the two extremes. In dealing with the policy on those lines I shall probably win the support of most hon. Members in the Committee. Some would place the emphasis more on protection, others would argue for more competition and freedom of choice. After all, this is part of the fundamental issue into which I believe most great questions resolve themselves: what is the precise blend of order and freedom which we think most likely to meet the needs of the particular situation?
We reject the path of protection. We also reject the opposite extreme of unrestricted competition because we believe that competition, if it is to work effectively, must be in a suitable framework; and, indeed, I am convinced myself that completely unfettered competition in the fuel field would endanger our energy supplies in the long run, and that competition must be supplemented by measures in order to take into account considerations which the market alone is liable to ignore.
If it is accepted that the fuel policy of any Government should lie somewhere between these two extremes then precisely where the emphasis should fall leaves room for endless argument, and perhaps it is in present circumstances fortunate that this debate has to come to an end at ten o'clock, otherwise argument would literally go on for ever. It is also sensible to be prepared to alter the particular emphasis we place in our fuel policy from time to time if changes in the situation demand it.
The Government are convinced that it was perfectly right to take the measures which they did take in the face of the particular fuel facts of the last few years. As the Committee knows, there was a ban on coal imports except from the sterling area; there were severe restrictions placed on oil from the Soviet bloc countries; there has been—and this ties up a little with something the hon. Gentleman mentioned—very considerable modification of the original programme of oil-fired power stations.
There has also been reached a valuable agreement between the gas industry and the coal industry under which the gas industry has undertaken to give to coal first refusal when it is deciding on new gas-making projects; the Government have given encouragement, where costs are similar, to the use of solid fuel for heating public buildings; and, lastly, the Government have provided capital at lower rates than in the open market in order not only to develop the industry, but also to finance the stocks which the National Coal Board built up in the years, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, of declining demand between 1957 and 1959.
There are many who say, and the hon. Gentleman would no doubt argue, that the Government should go a good deal

further in tilting the balance in favour of indigenous fuels. Others, on the other hand—and this will be common knowledge to us all—argue that the Government have gone too far. I am generally convinced, when I am criticised from both sides, than I am somewhere near the right position.
The problems of the coal industry, which is the nation's largest and most important supplier of energy, have already featured largely in the speech of the hon. Member and no doubt they will continue to occupy the lion's share of our attention during the rest of the debate.

Mr. Nabarro: No, certainly not.

Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend may not give them his attention, but I think that a number of speakers in this debate will mention coal. There are many reasons why this is so. It is very hard to imagine in the Parliamentary life of any of us here a debate on fuel and power which will not turn very largely on the problems of the coal industry.
I should now, therefore, like to examine the position of the industry within the framework of the fuel policy that I have been attempting to describe. The last full discussion that we had in the House on the industry was in February of last year, almost exactly a year ago, but the industry received some attention in November when we debated the White Paper on Public Investment. I have been re-reading the earlier debates, particularly the first, in which I took part, in November, 1959, when we discussed the affairs of the industry in connection with the Coal Industry Act, 1960, and the Coal Industry Nationalisation (Borrowing Powers) Order, which allowed the Coal Board to increase its borrowing powers.
No doubt some anxieties will be expressed again today which were expressed in those earlier debates, but the situation in the industry, as the hon. Member for Southwark must recognise, has radically changed in the fifteen months since November, 1959. The debate then took place in the wake of a serious fall in demand at a time when the Board had 36 million tons in stock, apart from the other millions of tons in stock which no doubt my hon. Friend will mention because he is very conscious of them.

Mr. Nabarro: Which hon. Friend?

Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who recently interrupted me.
On that occasion, I expressed the view that the decline in demand would be arrested in 1960 and that a small stock-lift would begin. I am not mentioning any names, but I remember on that occasion other views being expressed which diverged from subsequent facts rather more widely than my own estimates.
In 1960, the total of deep-mined and opencast coal produced was 193½ million tons, and the demand was such that the stocklift in 1960, instead of being the 1 million tons that I estimated, was a great deal more. A total of 6½. million tons were lifted in 1960 and stocks are now being lifted, admittedly apparently because of seasonal reasons, at a rate of over 2 million tons per month. The Board estimates that there will be again a considerable gap between production and demand in 1961 and, therefore, a further considerable stock-lift is likely in 1961. The existence of these stocks is beginning to appear a great deal more useful than seemed likely less than a year ago.
I hope that what I have said already has put some of the problems in perspective. The problems still exist and, no doubt, always will, but it is important that we should realise clearly that the problems of today are entirely different from those that faced us in 1959. I shall deal in a moment with manpower, but I cannot accept the suggestion which has been made not by the hon. Member for Southwark today but in other places, that the shortages of labour in the industry are due to lack of confidence in its future.

Mr. Norman Pentland: They certainly are.

Mr. Wood: I thought that that was the Opposition's case, but I do not accept it.

Mr. Gunter: Surely the fact that 50 per cent. of those who are leaving the industry are under 31 years of age indicates that the younger men have no confidence in it.

Mr. Wood: I was about to deal with the manpower position but, as the hon. Member for Southwark will know, this is an industry where the movement of men in and out of it has always been most considerable. The manpower position reflects very closely the view that men are taking of the industry at present. My own view, as the hon. Member knows, is not one of pessimism, but one of optimism. I feel that there are abundant grounds for confidence in the industry not only in relation to the future, but also in relation to the past few years.
I will deal, first, with the past. All those who are working in the industry are very conscious of the measures taken by the Board and the Government to assist the adjustment of the industry to reduced demand. Apart from the bias, already mentioned, in favour of indigenous fuels, there have been the measures of stocking, the Local Employment Act, and the considerable reduction in opencast working, and there has been the very gradual and, I am glad to say, very largely painless contraction of output achieved by such measures as allowing Saturday working to lapse and the suspension of recruitment. There has been the consequent very low rate of unemployment in the industry. There are not many other industries that have a lower rate.
Therefore, looking at past measures, there are grounds for confidence that treatment of the industry is likely to maintain a similar course in the future. But demand for coal in the next few years looks certain to exceed the likely production. I should have thought that it should give the greatest ground of all for confidence that the likely demand for one's product is rather larger than the likely production of it.

Mr. Arthur Probert: How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make up the deficit? What means will he employ?

Mr. Wood: I was about to deal with manpower, but, first, I wanted to take the opportunity of paying a very sincere tribute, both personally and otherwise. to Sir James Bowman and Sir Joseph Latham and the late Mr. Hembry who, as hon. Members know, was a member of the National Coal Board. All three gave the industry great leadership at the


time they served it. I think that hon. Members would particularly like to express gratitude to Sir James Bowman for what I believe was a great achievement. At a time when total output was being brought in line with demand, he achieved a steady increase in output per man shift. That is an achievement of which he can justly be proud. I am sure that all those who knew him would wish him happiness in his retirement. I am sure, also, that they would wish well to Mr. Robens, who is no stranger to us. and to Mr. Browne, the Deputy-Chairman.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that output per manshift depends largely on long-term planning?

Mr. Wood: I am sure that the hon. Member is right and that it has a great connection with long-term planning. I was merely suggesting, and I do not think that the hon. Member will disagree, that the achievement of an increase in output per man shift at a time when total output was falling is something on which Sir James Bowman deserves congratulation.
We have also read today of the death of Sir Charles Reid. Many hon. Members knew him well. His crowning achievement was his Report which drew attention to the changes needed in the industry to bring it to a state of full technical efficiency. I did not have the pleasure of knowing him, but, as I have said, many hon. Members did and he certainly impressed his personality clearly not only on the Coal Board, but on the Ministry and on industry generally. I am sure that we would all wish to send our sympathy to Lady Reid and to the present Chairman of the Durham Division of the Coal Board, who is personally known to many of us.
I return to the problem of manpower and point out that the reduction of the number of men in the industry was a deliberate policy of the Coal Board in the early months of 1960 and, with the restriction on recruitment, about a year ago the industry was losing men at an average rate of 1,400 men a week. There was then a substantial improvement in demand, which became quite evident in the middle of 1960, and the Coal Board resumed general recruitment. It is quite

clear, however, that the momentum of decrease takes some months to arrest and for that reason losses in manpower continued for the rest of 1960, but by the end of the year had fallen to 350 a week.
Since the end of 1960, I am glad to say that the position has been comparatively stable. That is a reason for confidence that this downward trend, which was the result of the deliberate policy of the Coal Board, has been arrested.
Therefore, my answer to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) is that I hope, with the resumption of recruitment, that the deficit of manpower. which is needed in the industry to man the pits, will be made up.

Mr. Probert: I referred to the deficit of coal production, not manpower. How does the Minister suggest that we will make up that deficit?

Mr. Wood: Fortunately, at present there are stocks and the deficit of coal production will provide opportunities to lift a certain tonnage of those stocks in 1961, and probably during 1962 and 1963. Obviously, if the demand for coal remains at about its present level the deficit can only be made up by increased productivity and higher O.M.S. in the pits now operating.

Mr. E. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with what I regard as the crucial problem affecting the industry. He has spoken of confidence in its future, but then went on to tell us—and he is dealing with the facts quite realistically—that the Coal Board intends to lift 2 million tons a month out of stock, which is 24 million tons this year. Is that the position? If that is so, and the Minister informs the country that the demand for coal will increase, but will be met out of stocks, surely that will disturb confidence in the future of the industry and some people will change their work.

Mr. Wood: I cannot have made myself clear to the right hon. Gentleman. The position is that stocks are at present being lifted at the rate of 2 million tons a month, but that does not mean that for the rest of 1961 they will be lifted at that rate. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, with his great experience, stocks are not lifted quite so quickly in the summer as in the winter.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the estimate of the reduction in stocks from that source this year?

Mr. Wood: Although my estimates in the past have been reasonably accurate, I am shy of making a further estimate. However, I think that the reduction of stocks will be about 7 million tons to 10 million tons this year and, therefore, it will take a little time before the situation which the right hon. Gentleman envisages takes place. One of the handicaps to recruitment—and I suggest that it is a very much more potent factor than the alleged lack of confidence in the industry—has been the competition not only from the motor industry in the Midlands, but also of a great many other fields of employment in areas where miners are most needed.
I imagine that the competition of other fields of employment which carry few of the very real difficulties of coal mining is a much stronger reason for the difficulty the Coal Board finds in attracting men to the pits than the suggested lack of confidence. I am also convinced that the recent wage award will have an effect in the right direction, but I am also convinced that it will cost money. The Coal Board is well aware that this added burden must be offset by improvements in productivity and in new efforts to reduce other costs.
It will be appropriate if I now turn to the finances of the industry.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the intake of juveniles into the industry during, say, the past twelve months or two years? That is very important for the future of the industry.

Mr. Wood: If the hon. Member will be satisfied for my hon. Friend to give the figures when he replies to the debate. I will see that he does so.
I turn now to the finances of the industry, and to try to make it more comprehensible I shall divide it into four sections. The first section is the question of capital investment; the second, total capital requirements; the third, borrowings; and the fourth, revenue account. There has been no modification of the general lines of the Coal Board's plan for continued reconstruction and modernisation of the

industry but, as foreshadowed in the White Paper in April, 1960, the Board made certain reductions leading to a lower level of capital investment than was envisaged a year ago.
The November White Paper mentions that the capital investment of the Board which is planned for 1960–61 looks like being at least £20 million lower than the approved figure of £120 million for 1960. That, therefore, has an effect on the Coal Board's total capital requirements. They are reduced, first, by the lower level of capital investment which I have just mentioned, and, secondly, they are influenced by changes in working capital which depend mainly on stock building and stock lifting.
As the Committee will remember, in December, 1958, and November, 1959, it approved Orders providing extra money for the Board to finance a heavy programme of stock building. However, in 1960, as we have noticed, stocks were lifted. I hope that the same will be true in 1961. The process has, therefore, been reversed and the requirements of the Board in working capital have been reduced. The total capital needs are, therefore. less. This has an effect on the borrowings of the Coal Board, which are running at a much lower level than was contemplated a year ago.
In January, 1960, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will remember that I accepted an Amendment which he moved after a more than usually persuasive speech. My hon. Friend was anxious on that occasion to reduce the annual limit from £75 million to £50 million. I am sure that the Committee will recall his triumph. I gave my opinion, which was quite wrong, that the new annual limit which my hon. Friend held us to, of £50 million, would almost certainly be exceeded in the fiscal year 1960–61. I was a long way out, because borrowings have, in fact, turned out to be £20 million, mainly because of the reduced capital investment and stock lifting, which I have already mentioned.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very grateful indeed to my right hon. Friend for his felicitous references to my activities on an earlier occasion. It is no triumph on my part at all. Evidently a combination of his administrative skill as Minister and my perspicacity has had the desired result.

Mr. Wood: I am glad that my hon. Friend is generous enough to allow me to share his triumph.
Lastly, I come to the revenue account of the Board. I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) at Questions today, that I cannot disclose details of the Board's revenue position before publication of the accounts for 1960. which will take place in a few months' time. However, in January of last year, the occasion to which I have just been referring, when I was seeking extended borrowing powers for the Board, I gave the House certain information about the Board's trading results for the previous year. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that I should be very much less than frank if I did not tell hon. Members the broad outline of the Board's revenue position at the beginning of 1961.
I have already mentioned the reductions in capital investment and the increases in stock-lifting, but these in themselves do not produce any immediate or major improvement on revenue account. The Board's decision in September, 1960, substantially to increase the price of coal was taken for one reason, which was that without such an increase the revenue prospects of the Board would have been extremely bad. But, in fact, the new increased prices, as the House is aware, operated only for the last quarter of 1960, and, therefore, they could not be expected to prevent a considerable revenue deficit in that year.
I do not think that at the moment I am saying anything which will come as a surprise to serious students of these matters. The Board has already published a statement for the first half of 1960 which shows that in the first quarter—January, February and March—it made a profit of £3 million, and m the second quarter it made a loss of £10 million. As the House knows, the third quarter of any year is always a bad one, and, therefore, it is quite inevitable that if the price increase was not effective, as it was not, until October last, 1960 would show a substantial loss. But while the loss was expected by all who had studied the recent trends of the industry, it is none the less a matter of serious concern to the Government and to the Board.

Mr. Nabarro: And to me.

Mr. Wood: In fact, 1960 is the fourth year running in which the Board has incurred a revenue loss.
Therefore, I thought it right to put before hon. Gentlemen well in advance of the publication of the Board's accounts the general shape of the present financial situation, and to go further and to assure the House that this is a matter of concern to my right hon. Friend's and myself and that the Government, together with the Board, are now examining the position which I have just described, and, further, that I will accept the obligation, if need be, to bring the matter again before the House when those discussions are complete.
I accept the challenge to work with the new Chairman of the National Coal Board, as I worked happily with Sir James Bowman, to try to meet the continuing problems of the coal industry. I have been convinced, during the last year and a quarter, that there is a growing realisation that some of today's problems would exist whatever the organisation of the industry and even if those running it possessed superhuman efficiency and acumen, because these problems have their roots—here I am in entire agreement with the hon. Gentleman—in the changed conditions of the last four years. and they do not all come to an end when the industry has adjusted itself to the new level of demand for coal.
I am convinced—here, I cannot carry the hon. Gentleman with me—that the answer to the problems of coal is not to be found in guaranteed targets and other measures of protection from the competition of its rivals. The answer lies, rather, in further improving the industry's efficiency by such measures as the Board's present programme of mechanisation, substantial increases, which I hope will take place, in O.M.S., and continued pressure on costs, and I am also convinced that that Board should be in a position to be able to meet a range of possible demands and to supply the maximum proportion of its sales from the lowest cost sources.
I feel that the path of protection is not only a very dangerous one for this country. I believe that, although the hon. Gentleman did not agree, it would


ultimately spell disaster for the coal industry because it would fatally sap its competitive power; and a protected industry would progressively fail to produce the coals consumers wanted at prices they were prepared to pay. I am convinced that the end result would be that it would become less and less able to meet the challenge of other fuels in the years ahead.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: I have been appalled by the speech of the Minister. The only thing that I can say on his behalf is that it is totally out of keeping with his character, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) made reference.
I should like to refer to one or two points mentioned by the Minister, before I go on to the main part of my speech. The right hon. Gentleman said that we were asking for a minimum figure which the National Coal Board would be expected to produce. And he attacked that assumption by saying that already the Board's target is higher than our figure. But surely what we are asking is that there should be a figure below which the Board should not go. That is the relevant point.
The right hon. Gentleman also talks about the policy of the Government as having to run the Board. Surely what we are asking is that the Government should give some positive direction to the Board and should not have to run the Board in its everyday affairs.
The Minister also mentioned what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) rightly pointed out was the nub of the problem at present. that there is likely to be a deficit in coal production to meet the internal requirements within the next few years. That is a very serious statement to make. The Minister assumes that we shall meet the deficit from existing stockpiles. However, I should like to know how long those stockpiles will exist.
The Minister also spoke about the men having faith in the future of the industry on the basis of existing figures. There is in my constituency at present 4 per cent. unemployment owing to redundancy and short-time working in various factories. Yet the pits are short of between 300 and

400 men. What attraction does the industry offer to those men, who, despite the fact that they are out of work, will not go back into the pits?
I found myself 100 per cent. in agreement with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark who, unlike the Minister, saw the problem in perspective. That is what we have to do. It has been apparent to all those who are concerned with the industry that the Government are themselves totally apathetic and totally unaware—this has been revealed today by the Minister's statement—of the future prospects of fuel. This unconcern is shared, unfortunately, by the mass of the people in the country. I do not blame the people for that. Sufficient warning has not been given for the Government about the position that we might be in during the next few years. If we go short of fuel—that is possible now, according to the Minister's statement—within the next few years, the inevitable consequences for the country will be very serious indeed.
I am not making a constituency point, because, if coal is urgently required for the next few years, certainly the 10,000 miners in my constituency will have employment in the pits—if the pits are there. That is the problem as I see it.
I do not want to go into facts and figures, because too many of them have been bandied about from both sides of the House, including by me. We have been plaguing the industry from day to day, month to month, and year to year. We must consider trends and the fuel requirements of this country and of the world, as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, over the next thirty or forty years.
It is a common illusion that we shall be tided over our future fuel deficit by nuclear energy. It has already been pointed out that, on the most optimistic estimates, nuclear energy, by the end of the century, will supply only 15 per cent. of world fuel requirements. That is a comparatively infinitesimal figure. All we can hope from nuclear energy is that it will assist in meeting the fuel supply which we shall desperately need.
We must impress upon our people that coal, gas and oil are not renewable fuels. Once they have been taken out of the earth they are gone for ever. I am


gratified that my hon. Friend mentioned the more important aspect that experts say that in thirty or forty years' time we shall be running short of oil. That is why it appals me that the right hon. Gentleman cannot see what is happening in perspective. I must add, however, that there are also experts who contend that we can extend that period for a few years. But we cannot afford error on either side.

Mr. William Stones: We cannot: afford to waste any.

Mr. Probert: We cannot afford waste, as I shall show.
We have not considered, in relation to industry as a whole, the nature of coal economics. The cry goes out, particularly from hon. Members opposite, that we should close uneconomic pits and make coal competitive. But it is not as simple as that. I am not here referring to the grave social consequences that occur when a pit closes—though, goodness knows, I know about them. I am referring to the consequences to the country as a whole and to mankind.
If we close a pit we can never reopen it, and we have lost for ever—I stress "for ever"—the reserves which will be so valuable to this country in twenty or thirty years' time—not even in fifty or sixty years' time. I know from experience in my constituency that it was the policy of private coal owners—I do not blame them, although they were wrong—in the harshly competitive world of the time, to rip up the more profitable seams and close the uneconomic seams.
What happens during a shortage of coal? We can never reopen districts to get at these seams because they are flooded, or the strata has been affected, or there has been subsidence. That was the result of ruthless competition, in which hon. Members opposite now wish to indulge again.
When its goods are not being produced at an economic price a factory can close, but when the goods are again required at economic prices it can reopen and take back the men and women employees again, because the nature of the industry does not preclude it from doing so. But that is not so in the coal industry.
I want to give the Committee what I believe to be startling figures. The present disposition of the world's use of

fuel is that seven-eighths of the world's fuel is being used by one-third of mankind, while two-thirds of mankind uses only one-eighth. One can imagine what the position will be in the near future when, as we all hope, the under-developed countries, where people are now starving, only imperceptibly increase their industrial production.
The scramble for the dwindling supply of oil is something to which I do not look forward. That is why I feel so seriously that the nation should now make sure that, when the time comes, as it will, inevitably—far quicker than the right hon. Gentleman appears to think—we are in a safe position.
As the right hon. Gentleman obviously knows, natural gas supplies in the world are the smallest supplies that it has. This must be a warning to the gas industry that it should not indulge in long-term capital development for the importation of natural gas, because reserves are dwindling fast.
What about oil? Estimates have been given of the maximum peak production of oil in the United States between 1960 and 1965. In a book, "The Next Hundred Years," published in 1957, Mr. Harrison Brown wrote:
‡ if we assume the total initial reserve of petroleum in the United States to be 150 billion barrels, we might expect to pass through the peak of production between 1960 and 1965.
We are now in 1961. Mr. Brown went on:
On the other hand, if we assume that the petroleum available is one-third more, or 200 billion barrels, the maximum is postponed only for six years.
Those are startling figures.
I have another quotation from the article, "Current Trend of Production and Consumption of Sources of Energy," by Mr. Eugene Ayres:
… it seems probable now that US. demand in 1975 will be more than double U.S production and that the rest of the Free World. will be dependent largely on Middle East production. If this comes to pass we may expect the use of oil to be almost exclusively limited to internal combustion and other similar unique applications.
Those are quotations from experts, and I am appalled when the right hon. Gentleman blithely looks at the matter through rose-tinted spectacles.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Sahara. So much has been said of resources of oil


there. There are 1,500 million barrels of oil in reserve in the Sahara, it is stated. But considered as part of the total of world production, over eighteen months the whole of that could be used up. How can we rely on that source? The lesson is clear. We must insist that the Government have a national fuel policy to ensure the safety of the nation and the people for whom we are responsible. It is certain that the world will continue its economic growth much more rapidly in the underdeveloped countries than at present. Indeed, we are all hoping and working to that end. If that growth is related closely to increased industrial production, the decline in oil reserves and natural gas will quicken. That is the position facing us.
All that we have heard today lays great stress, despite what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said repeatedly, on the great importance of coal as our indigenous fuel. We are very fortunate to have that great wealth under our earth. Yet what we are doing now is flagrantly to throw it away, disregarding our grandchildren, our greatgrandchildren and the future safety of the country.
I am well aware that I have not touched upon the human problems involved. I feel that that is a matter which is the prerogative of those who belong to the great National Union of Mineworkers and who defend its members so vigorously, as they have done so for so many years.
I am in constant touch with the miners, who are personal friends of mine. I am in constant touch with the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers, who are also personal friends of mine. I know full well, despite the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave us of recruitment and so forth, that there is great concern in the industry at present. To talk about youth going into the industry is wrong. I do not see that happening. The significant thing was that when we had National Service boys were going into the pits to avoid call-up. There is now no National Service and they are not going into the pits. There is no attraction for them to do so. I hope that the figures which we shall get later will belie what I am saying. I should welcome them if they did. That is certainly not the position in my constituency.
I will close now, because many of my hon. Friends, and no doubt many hon.

Members opposite, wish to speak in the debate, but before doing so I would ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to consider much more deeply than they have done not what is to happen this year, next year or the year after, but what is to happen in ten or twenty years' time when the country may be involved, perhaps through no fault of its own, in international problems. I will not say involved in war—heaven forbid. If, at that time, we have not the indigenous fuel in the country, how are we to get it, in view of the worldwide scramble that there will be for the dwindling sources of oil?
The right hon. Gentleman should have put forward today a national fuel policy. I do not propose to suggest what I think that policy should be. I want to hear it from the Government first. I have my own suggestions. As far as uneconomic pits are concerned, it is my opinion that we should not close them in order only to work profitable seams. If it were a question of choice and if we found that by taking the best seams first it meant that we should lose the uneconomic seams, then we should take the uneconomic seams first and the profitable seams later. If we cannot do that, we should keep the uneconomic pits in a state of care and maintenance. The cost of so doing would be a national charge. I would stress that. Do not ask me how it should be done. It should be done by the Coal Board.
If we could produce a national fuel policy now we should deserve all the praise possible from future generations. This great nation can only preserve its prowess by having a plentiful supply of indigenous coal in the future. If we ensure that, we shall deserve praise as responsible Members of Parliament and as responsible Ministers. Certainly, those great men, the miners, who are carrying on in the most arduous conditions, would deserve praise, too. That is what the Government should be doing this year, not next year or the year after, When it will be too late.

5.14 p.m.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: The most heartening thing which has emerged from the debate so far seems to me to be that the recession in power requirements appears to have passed and that we are once again emerging into a


condition where additional power requirements are facing us.
What I want to talk about this afternoon is the part which coal should play in that situation. Before I do so, however, I hope that the Committee will allow me to add a word to what my right hon. Friend said about Sir Charles Reid. I knew Sir Charles for many years. I admired his qualities and the part he played in this great industry. He entered the industry at an early age and by reason of his abilities and his character rose in due course to be the chief general manager of the Fife Coal Company. With the advent of the war, he was selected to be coal production officer first for Scotland and then for Great Britain.
In 1944, Sir Charles Reid became celebrated as the chairman of the committee which was set up to consider the technical problems of the coal industry. The recommendations of that committee were such that, I think, had we pressed ahead with them under the auspices of the Gower Commission the situation today might have been very different. I have had opportunities at various times of collaborating with Sir Charles Reid in some part of his work and I should like to add my meed of praise for the part which he played in the industry during a very long life.
What we have to consider today is the part that the coal industry should play in our requirements in the light, as I have said, of these requirements beginning to show themselves to be on the increase. Before we do so I think it would be as well to look at what happened in 1960. Despite what may appear to have been a satisfactory increase in a certain direction, 1960 was a bad year. When we discussed coal a year ago I said that if it were the intention of the Ministry to maintain stocks at their existing level or even to reduce them, this could only be done in one of three possible ways. We could close down additional pits, there could be short-time working, or we should have to tell managements to go slow.
In his winding-up speech in our last debate on the industry, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said reluctantly that it looked as if we should have to adopt the third alternative. In fact, we did something quite different. We ran down manpower, at a pace which I

think was unwise. In 1960 we lost 50,000 men. That, in my opinion, was not a sound thing to do. Obviously, there must be some reduction in manpower when we are pulling up an industry at the expense at which we have done so, but not at the rate of 50,000 men in one year.
That is having an immediate effect both in South Wales and the Midlands, in particular, where they are short of men, where they have the capacity and where we could be boosting production were the men available. Despite the reduction of 50,000 men the financial results of this, as my right hon. Friend suggested, was not satisfactory on the year's working. I do not know what the final figure will be, but it will probably show an additional loss of between £10 million and £15 million.
How did we set about facing up to this loss—by increasing the price of coal by up to 10s. a ton? I do not think that that was very wise, either. It has imposed an additional burden on our export trade and on our steel trade, in particular, which will make additional exports a matter of great difficulty. We should have been far wiser, I believe, to have recognised that we were running the industry expensively and that the sound thing to do was not to increase the cost of coal, but to set about such economies as could be undertaken.
The Committee may well ask: what could those economies be? Let us take one example. I shall call in aid the researches of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which not only looked into the affairs of this industry but, quite recently, looked into the affairs of the railway industry as well. What did we find? We found that the 700,000 people employed on the railways are being administered by a Commission in London employing about 700 men. In the coal mining industry, we have about 600,000 men administered in London by the National Coal Board, at Hobart House, by a staff of well over 4,000. That not only means 4,000 men representing 3s. 6d. on every ton of coal produced, but 4,000 individuals breathing down the necks of management in the provinces who are producing the coal—

Mr. Probert: Those figures are rather startling. Would not the hon. And


gallant Gentleman agree that in the Coal Board there is a far greater preponderance of scientific officers in relation to men than there would be in the transport industry?

Colonel Lancaster: That may well be, but the sum total of the thing is that this very large amount of money—3s. 6d. on each ton of coal, representing 7s. on every ton of steel produced—is an on cost, apart from all the other on-costs that go to create a position in which coal today is an expensive commodity.
In spite of the fact that we have made—let us recognise it—considerable advances in O.M.S. and O.M.Y., for the first time in my life we find ourselves lagging behind our chief competitor in Europe, the Ruhr coal mining industry, which is producing coal, both overall and at the coal face, at a higher rate than we are. I have never known that to happen before. Geology has not altered in that period. The Germans are still mining coal 900 feet deeper than we are, our seams are still much flatter than theirs, we do not have to drive roads horizontally as the Germans do, nor do we stow coal as they do. Nevertheless, Germany is producing coal at a great O.M.S. than we are, and at a cheaper rate.
If that is so—and, indeed, it is factual; I can produce the figures—there must be something wrong with our industry—

Mr. David Ginsburg: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that point, should he not, for the sake of fairness in the comparison, add that the length of the shift in Germany has been increased by half-an-hour in the last few years? That, of course, has made a very important contribution to the O.M.S. figure.

Colonel Lancaster: Whether or not that shift was increased, the outcome is that, for the first time in my experience, the Ruhr German industry is forging ahead of ours—

Mr. Thomas Swain: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that the German Ruhr O.M.S. figure is higher than ours. Can he give the output per man shift and the output per man year over the past twelve months? Can he give the comparative figures, and not leave it in the air?

Mr. Shinwell: And for bituminous coal, not brown coal.

Colonel Lancaster: The O.M.S. for Western Germany in 1959 and the first half of 1960 was, in output per man-shift overall, 1·433, as against an output in this country of 1·399.

Mr. Swain: That is for 1960?

Colonel Lancaster: The first half of 1960.

Mr. Swain: I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member does some homework.

Colonel Lancaster: I do not draw that comparison with any pleasure. I do not want to say that the Germans are better coal miners than we are. We have heard in the past of how we were doing better than coal producing countries in Europe, but I think that when such a situation arises it is high time that we looked at the industry, and looked at it critically.
How critically has this industry been looked at during the last fourteen years? There has been one major inquiry—that of the Fleck Committee—whose recommendations, I believe, were, on the whole, almost disastrous. What were those recommendations? They had the effect of centralising an industry that has already become too rigid. The Fleck Committee recommended a number of additional posts that proved themselves to be expensive and meant more men being taken from the areas and regions and brought to London. The sum total of the Fleck Committee's recommendations meant nothing other than to solidify a condition of affairs that, as I say, has already become very rigid.
Would we not be wise now to look again at the industry, and to see whether the time has not come when we can bring about some further improvement? I think that the time is ripe for that. As I said a year ago, we are at long last in the fortunate position of having men at almost every level of management who have come to their industrial maturity at this moment, and who can stand comparison, certainly, with men of any time during my experience of the industry, and can probably stand comparison with managements in any other part of the world.
We have a first-class lot of technicians and managers throughout the industry at this moment ready, I believe, to take on far greater responsibility than they have hitherto been given. There is an opportunity for devolution that has probably not been there before. If Mr. Robens, who is taking over the chairmanship of the Coal Board—and whom we all wish well in the problems that lie ahead—can bring about a considerable degree of devolution, and considerable economy of manpower at the centre, I think that we shall begin to see the advances that can flow from a state of affairs where management is ready—indeed, willing—to accept further responsibility—

Mr. James Griffiths: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a wide experience of the industry, as have others of us. We know that it is an industry that has its history. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman pleads for devolution of administration, would he not agree that any system of devolution must steer clear and keep clear of the decentralisation of finance and wages, otherwise it will add to the troubles of the industry, and bring back old memories and old conflicts?

Colonel Lancaster: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). Devolution does not necessitate a breaking away of wage agreements from central control. I have never suggested that. I am recommending devolution purely on the managerial and administrative level. I want to see the responsibility and the initiative of management at all levels given its full opportunity, and I believe that the time is now ripe for that.
I am hopeful that Mr. Robens who, I am sure, is capable, and is anxious to see the improvements that must be forthcoming if we are to make this an efficient industry brought into force, will realise that he has now an opportunity of bringing about a degree of devolution that cannot have any but good results. I hope that he, with my right hon. Friend, will be given full scope for making such changes as are required to bring this industry up to a state of efficiency.
I go further than that. If Mr. Robens is to make a success of his task he must be given, to help him, a Board which is capable of doing the job which a central Board should do; that is, a Board

capable of promoting policy, enthusing the industry and giving a lead in a way in which only the right Board can do. Boards are not made merely by conglomerating the functional heads of departments, as has been done in the past. If Mr. Robens is to have a Board which will enable him to do the work which I am sure he is anxious to do—and which certainly I feel that he is capable of doing—he must be given an opportunity of recruiting to that Board men of wide experience in industry, commerce and the trade union movement.
We must get away from the idea that merely by putting the heads of functional departments together we can thereby assume that a policy-making Board is created. It is not. I do not want to elaborate this aspect of the matter, but I cannot for a moment believe that if we leave the matter as it is at present, and if Mr. Robens concerns himself merely with devolution and does not set about creating round himself a Board capable of giving the right policy decisions for the industry, he will succeed.
I hope that in both these endeavours Mr. Robens will have, as I am sure he will have, the co-operation of my right hon. Friend and the blessing of this House. He has an enormous task before him. He will succeed the more readily if we can avoid perpetuating a condition wherein one side is tilting against the other in coal questions. We should rather join together in giving them the joint support of both sides of the House. If we do so I have a very real feeling that he will succeed in his task.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. J. Hill: I have listened very attentively to the debate, and especially to the Minister. I heard him say that the Government have been doing their best for the industry, but I am quite sure that he will have great difficulty in convincing the miners of that. I cannot see that the Government have been doing more for the coal industry than was done in the past. We have three major nationalised industries. If they were working together it would not have been necessary to have stocked up any coal at all. Most of the generators are double burners and there is no reason why they should not be burning British coal instead of imported coal.
The right hon. Gentleman also inferred that the industry had been assisted


by low rates of interest. Again, I do not think that the Government have gone far enough. We hear about the Coal Board being "in the red", but I think it is generally agreed that one of the main reasons for that is the high rate of interest it has to pay on capital borrowed for development of the industry. I wish to suggest how more money could be saved.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) talked about 4,000 employees of the Coal Board "breathing down the necks of the miners". Could I draw his attention to another part of the trade, where other people have been breathing down the necks of the miners ever since the industry was natonalised? I refer to the ex-owners. They have been breathing down the necks of the miners to the extent of £280 million and still to the extent of about £14 million a year. That is something which the Government should look at. They should consider ways and means of reducing that hot breath on miners' necks. It is rather strange that one of the common expressions in the industry should be redundancy when there is more redundancy in that direction.
The reason why I refer to Scotland—perhaps I should be careful, as I see that we are designated aliens now—is that as a Scots miners' Member of Parliament I am very interested in the miners of Scotland. In Scotland, last year, the amount of coal available for sale including deep-mined and opencast coal, was about 19 million tons, but sales in Scotland amounted to 20 million tons. It is a sad state of affairs when Scotland has to import coal from England. I have heard the expression, "taking coals to Newcastle", but in the east of Scotland we have had the experience of coal being taken from Newcastle to Scotland to burn in generators.
Scotland imported 1½ million tons of coal from England last year. Despite that, at the end of last year and beginning of this year, there was a shortage both of house and industrial coal. On the banks of the Forth, at a little place called Portobello, on the edge of the Midlothian coalfield, lorries have been running for 24 hours a day bringing coal from the Newcastle area to keep a generator going.
I hope that both the Government and the Coal Board will remember that when they are discussing any further closures in the near future. We have lost more than 40 pits in Scotland in the last two years. I hope that we are not to lose any more. I agree that a pit which is exhausted must close, but, like some of my hon. Friends, I do not agree that such pits should be closed for economic reasons, because the money is in the industry to pay for any loss which would be incurred.
The question of manpower has been discussed a great deal this afternoon. In Scotland, we lost 17,000 men from the industry in the last two years. The Coal Board is again going in for a recruitment drive. I have not heard any hon. Member, on either side, say what attraction can be given to young men to go back to the pits. The best way to attract them is to give them improved wages and to restore the 7-hour day. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the average wage in the country was £14 a week. I thought, when he said that, that he should come to Scotland and to the mining area I represent, where three-quarters of the day wage men and surface miners are earning much less.
A day wage earner underground on a basic wage with no overtime—and there is very little overtime in the industry now—is lucky if he takes home more than £9 a week. A man on the surface takes home £8 a week. I am sure that they would be very happy if the statement by the Chancellor about the average wage in the country meant that they were taking home £14 a week to their wives.
The decision to set up smokeless zones, which has not been mentioned today, is another factor to remember.

Mr. Nabarro: Very good, too.

Mr. Hill: I did not say that they were not.
I suggest that when the Government make up their mind to carry out their promise to install in Scotland two plants for the production of smokeless fuel, they set up one of those plants in my constituency, where we have plenty of coal. Because of the lack of smokeless fuel, merchants and customers in the east of Scotland have been complaining about not being able to get it.
I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. I therefore, suggest that the Government look again at the set-up and give us the co-ordinated fuel policy for which we are asking. Such a policy would give miners security and would help to reduce the balance of payments.
It may seem odd that hon. Members representing mining constituencies should argue that the coal industry and pits should be kept open and, at the same time, criticise the conditions in which the miners work. My answer is that if the Government were prepared to provide alternative employment in Midlothian we would not argue for the pits to be kept open. We would insist on closing the lot.
I would remind the House of a statement made in 1940 by the then Prime Minister, after the fall of France. He was addressing delegates from every colliery, at a meeting in London. He said:
Our backs are to the wall. Go back to the coal-fields and tell your men that we must have more coal if we are to survive and that if they give us that coal the country will never forget.
I hope that this House of Commons and the country will never forget.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I should like at the outset to congratulate most warmly the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in a major fuel and power debate. I listened fascinated to his lengthy speech which was impeccable in its statistical references. He would not expect me to agree with the deductions he drew in matters of fuel and power policy.
As for my right hon. Friend's speech, that was of a substantially higher order than his earlier speeches and those speeches delivered at the Dispatch Box by many of his predecessors. Today I am very largely in agreement with what he had to say about fuel and power policy.
The word "laissez-faire" has been used as one extreme of outlook in fuel and power matters, "planning" being the other extreme. I am not a supporter of laissez-faire in fuel and power matters, but I must say that I view with the gravest suspicion the clamant demands from the Socialist Party in the House of Commons

and in the country, warmly supported by the Trades Union Congress and by the National Union of Mineworkers, for what they are pleased to refer to as a coordinated fuel and power policy.
It is not in my judgment a demand for a fuel and power policy that they make at all. All it is in my judgment is a demand for discrimination against a fuel, namely, oil, which is effectively competing with coal, notably in British industry. It is on that theme that I want to say a few words to the Committee.
My right hon. Friend did not place oil in the context of the contribution it makes to our balance of payments, and I wrote down what the hon. Member for Southwark said. He said that in the matter of balance of payments the position of oil was "not revealed."

Mr. Gunter: indicated assent.

Mr. Nabarro: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. I commend to him a well-known Government publication, The Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom, published on 28th January last. I invite him particularly to turn to Class "C" divisions 1 and 2, which cover mineral fuels and lubricants. He will find there that whereas coal and associated coal products, including coke, exported from the United Kingdom during the calendar year 1960 were valued at a modest £28 million, the value of exports of petroleum products was no less than £104 million.
It is not a matter of coincidence that, by their export achievements, petroleum and petroleum products contributed to this nation's balance of payments precisely four times as much as coal.

Mr. William Warbey: As the hon. Gentleman has the document. I hope that he will quote the figures for the import of oil—both crude oil and refined products—during last year.

Mr. Nabarro: Of course I will. The hon. Gentleman is unduly precipitate. Of course I would not quote exports without quoting imports. The imports of coal were negligible. Glory be to God. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?] Because in 1955 alone this nation dissipated a sum of nearly £80 million in hauling coal across the North Atlantic, and that had a disastrous effect on our


balance of payments. Last year, largely because of the efforts of my right hon. Friend and his predecessors, coal imports were negligible.
Our exports of petroleum and petroleum products in 1960 amounted to £104 million. Our imports amounted to £148 million. There was a disparity between the two of only £44 million. I stress the word "only" for this reason. That import figure of £148 million was derived largely from British sources and British refineries wholly, or for a majority part, owned by British shareholders in foreign and Commonwealth countries, as, for example, the huge investment of British capital in Royal Dutch Shell and the fact that the Venezuelan oil fields today are a substantial British investment. That kind of investment has a profound bearing for the good and on the credit side of our balance of payments.

Mr. Ginsburg: The hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) said that the oil position was not known. I think the critical point is that it is not known from Government statistics what is the true invisible position. We have listened to interesting sentiments from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), but I should be grateful if he would give the figure.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) is a little less accurate than usual. His hon. Friend the Member for Southwark did not say that the position of oil in the context of the balance of payments was "not known". He said that it was "not revealed". That is somewhat different. On visible account exports of petroleum products from the United Kingdom showed a deficit of the difference between £148 million of imports and £104 million of exports. Balanced against that disparity of £44 million are the earnings derived from huge British investment in refineries all over the world and on invisible account.
It is nearly impossible to separate invisible earnings as between shipping, insurance, banking and dividends, from direct investments. The Treasury itself could not do that. However, I hazard the estimate that there are hundreds of millions of pounds of British capital vested in the activities of British and

largely-British oil undertakings overseas which, at even a modest return in the form of profits and dividends, yield to us a sum infinitely greater than the disparity between £104 million of petroleum products exported from this country and £148 million of imports
There is a second reason why oil should not be attacked; that is the delicate and finely balanced production structure of British refineries. No matter what the colour of the Government has been since 1945, a very high priority in the capital investment programme has always been the financing of British refineries in Britain and overseas. For a refinery to operate at the highest efficiency it must have a balanced output—first, of fuel oil; secondly, of aviation spirit; thirdly, of motor spirit; fourthly, of lubricants; fifthly, of greases; and, sixthly but not least, of petro-chemicals. If that balance is upset—petro-chemistry is a highly involved and technical study—it can have a most damaging effect upon our entire economy.
It is for those two reasons that I support a policy in fuel and power matters not by any means of laissez-faire, but of free competition between oil and coal. It is entirely fallacious for the National Union of Mineworkers, the Trades Union Congress and Socialist Members of Parliament to say that oil represents an import into Britain and therefore should be weighed in its economic value against indigenous coal. Were we not to import the vast quantities of oil that we bring in today it would be impossible for us not only to sustain our highly intricate and sophisticated national economy as we know it today, but to service, for example, the 8 million motor vehicles on our roads.

Mr. Michael Foot: Nobody is suggesting that we cut off oil altogether.

Mr. Nabarro: No, but the Socialist Party is suggesting that an artificial impediment should be placed upon the expansion of the oil industry in this country by the imposition of a tax. That would be most harmful to the future expansion and earnings of one of our major industries.
In this context not only my right hon. Friend's statement today but a statement


made by the Paymaster-General in another place, which it would be in order for me to quote, is particularly apposite. Lord Mills said in another place on 26th October, 1960, speaking as a Cabinet Minister in the present Administration:
…we produce in this country more fuel oil than we consume. Often an oil company is both an importer and an exporter of fuel oil, as in the case of other petroleum products. This is due to the complex structure of the international oil industry in which we have such a large share. If we take into account the fact that we depend upon the lighter oils for much of our road transport and for much of our agricultural requirements, we see that this in itself means that fuel oil is produced in increasing quantities.
A little later the noble Lord said:
This international oil business is a most complex structure; certain fuel oils are imported and certain fuel oils are exported. The moment the fuel oil comes into this country it becomes just the same as if it had been produced in the refineries, and is dealt with in the international trade."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 26th October, 1960; c. 1137.]
I suggest to hon. Members opposite that the recent visit by the representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers and the representatives of the Trades Union Congress to the Prime Minister, at which I am told that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power was present, to try to persuade the Prime Minister to put an artificial brake or impediment in the way of the continued expansion and earnings of the British oil industry was ill-advised and certainly not calculated to help coal-miners and other sections of organised labour which the deputation sought to represent.
Another feature of the Opposition's case in these matters of fuel policy which is so odious is their utter inconsistency between major debates. On the 6th and 7th of this month we had an interesting two-day debate on financial and economic affairs. It was noteworthy that several leading spokesmen for the Opposition in party matters—party politics aside—notably the hon. Members for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who are no mean economists in their own right, advocated increased competition for British industry and the quite essential feature, as they argued, that Britain must enter the Common Market at an early date.
If we entered the Common Market, what would be the position of our coal

industry? It would have none of the protection that it enjoys today. The protection it enjoys today is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, who is responsible for all fuel and power production and co-ordination in Britain, protects the coal industry by assuring arrangements which make it unnecessary to import coal. If we were members of the Common Market, could we any longer do that? We would be part of the iron, steel and coal communities, for that is an essential part of Common Market arrangements, and then Polish and West German coal—Polish coal because it could be re-exported through Common Market countries—would undermine the market for British coal in our own industries.
No qualification was made by the hon. Member for Grimsby or the hon. Member for Stechford as to special protection for the British coal industry if we joined the Common Market. It must be remembered now that our costs of coal production have gone far ahead of the costs of coal production in the Common Market countries.
Hon. Members opposite often call in aid the Guardian, for it invariably portrays many of their own Left-wing tendencies. I prefer the Daily Express, but that is only a personal preference. I want to quote the leading article in the Guardian of 15th February by Georg Tugendhat, a well known fuel technologist, formerly the managing director of Manchester Oil Refineries.

Mr. M. Foot: The hon. Gentleman referred to a firm which went broke.

Mr. John Harvey: rose—

Mr. Nabarro: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will deal with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) in my own way. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that Manchester Oil Refineries was a firm which "went broke". On the contrary, Manchester Oil Refineries is very much alive and is a thriving firm—in Manchester, as one would suppose. It has done very well in petro-chemicals in the last few years. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) is a distinguished servant of that company, and no doubt rose to support those facts. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale may


know about the Fabian Society, but what he knows about British industry could be written on the back of a 3d. stamp.
I was about to quote Georg Tugendhat—I never come to debates, I remind the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, without looking up the impeccable character of the references which I call in aid—Doctor of Laws, Vienna; Master of Science, London School of Economics—that should appeal to the hon. Member; formerly managing director, Manchester Oil Refineries; Governor and Fellow of the London School of Economics; Fellow of the Royal Economic Society; many contributions on economic, financial, and fuel and power matters.
I was saying that our coal prices, given a free market with Common Market countries, would be uncompetitive. The quotation from the Guardian is:
Following the latest increase in coal prices by about 8s. to 10s. a ton in Britain, the cost of electricity, gas and transport has been raised. The Central Electricity Council has stated that the rise in coal prices has increased the cost at the generating stations alone by over £10 millions, and further price increases for electricity have been announced. The steel industry, where a change of £1 in the price of coal means £2 on the steel price, is expected to increase its prices by 25s. to 35s. a ton.
The operative words of critical importance to the Committee are:
We are the only major industrial country at the moment in which energy prices have not only failed to come down but are actually rising.
I will give the article to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.

Mr. M. Foot: I have read it.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry. The hon. Member should, therefore, know better.
It is all of a pattern. It is indubitably the fact that energy prices have fallen in Common Market countries while in Britain they have been steadily rising. I commend to the Committee particularly what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Col. Lancaster) said about the high price of coal which is causing, and will undoubtedly cause in future, further weakening of our coal position by competition from oil.
The coal industry in Britain today is not in an entirely healthy condition. There is a great deal wrong with it,

financially and otherwise. It is very unpopular among the consuming public. I hope that no hon. Member will suppose that the National Coal Board is among the most popular of our industrial organisations.
Certainly it has had a great deal with which to contend—many vicissitudes and many tribulations in the last few years—but one major reason why more and more consumers of fuel in this country are changing to oil from coal is the inconsistency in quality of the coals which they wish to employ, or the high price, or the fact that a lot of rubbish is often supplied to the domestic market and erroneously called coal.

Mr. Swain: Can the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) tell the Committee why on no occasion since the return of a Conservative Government in 1951 he or any member of his party, from the back benches or the Government Front Bench—and the order in which I put them will be observed—has recommended the denationalisation of the coal mines in the interests of the nation?

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but I am sure that he has not heard me speaking in many coal debates.

Mr. Swain: I have, too many times.

Mr. Nabarro: Too many times? The fact that my views do not readily commend themselves to the hon. Member, who has a vested interest in the coal industry and—

Mr. Swain: Declare yours in the oil industry.

Mr. Nabarro: —in the National Union of Mineworkers—

Mr. Swain: Declare yours in the oil industry.

Mr. Nabarro: —does not in any way detract from the veracity of what I am saying.

Mr. Swain: Declare yours in the oil industry.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): Order. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) must not tell me to declare my interest in the oil industry or anything else.

Mr. Nabarro: I will reply to that last jibe of the hon. Member, for jibe it was. I have no interest direct or indirect—

Mr. Swain: On a point of order. You brought me to order, Sir Norman. May I now bring the hon. Member for Kidderminster to order? He stated categorically that I had an interest in the coal industry. All I did in return was to ask him to declare his interest in the oil industry.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. What the hon. Member did was to ask me to declare my interest.

Mr. Nabarro: As always, Sir Norman, I am deeply indebted to you for your protection.
I said that the hon. Member had a vested interest in the coal industry. He is notoriously a member of the National Union of Mineworkers, so of course he has a vested interest. He asked me to make a declaration of my interest, which I do with the greatest happiness and enjoyment. I have no interest, direct or indirect, in the oil industry. I even sold my oil shares so that a jibe of that kind could not have any substance. I am not yet a Minister of the Crown, so there was no absolute need for me to sell. [HON. MEMBERS: "Make a packet?"] Yes, I made a packet.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The hon. Member has drawn our attention to the way prices of British coal have increased and has compared that with what has happened on the Continent. Will he give the other side of the picture and tell the House what is the price of coal on the Continent against British coal?

Mr. Nabarro: That would involve me in a lengthy statement. I will return to it if the hon. Member wishes, but I was at the point of saying that the condition of the British coal industry was not entirely healthy and I give a variety of reasons for it. There are a number of things which I hope Mr. Alfred Robens will do—

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): rose—

Mr. Nabarro: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-

Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) has just taken his seat after standing below the Bar. He was not in his place or anywhere else in the Chamber when I started speaking. I do not mind giving way to regular participants in these debates, but not frivolously to anybody who cares to rise.

Mr. Popplewell: On a point of order.

Mr. Nabarro: I said "frivolously".

Mr. Popplewell: On a point of order. Has the hon. Member any right to suggest that interventions are frivolous when he does not know what they are? My point of order is that I was present when the hon. Member quoted British coal prices against Continental prices. I think that in justice to the Committee he should quote Continental pithead against British pithead prices to justify his argument.

Mr. Nabarro: I am glad, Sir Norman, that you treat that intervention with the disdain it deserves. Perhaps I may now continue my speech and—

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is patently not in order when he attempts to attribute to you, Sir Norman, statements which you did not make. He suggested that you treated my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) with disdain. In fairness, you did not do that, and, as a matter of fact, it is patently out of order to attribute motives to the Chair and I hope that you will ask the hon. Member to withdraw that statement.

The Temporary Chairman: I must say that I did not regard it as unnecessarily offensive.

Mr. Pannell: It is not a matter of whether you considered it offensive or not, Sir Norman. It is a matter for the Committee, as to whether you will allow hon. Members to attribute motives to you, not what you think. It is that that the hon. Member did.

The Temporary Chairman: The mere fact that I did not answer the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) does not mean that I treated him with disdain.

Mr. Pannell: Withdraw.

Mr. Nabarro: Silence is golden, in the Chair as elsewhere. I am here to make contributions to debates.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Why do you not?

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will allow me to continue, I will answer some of the points which have been put to me.
I said that the coal industry was not in a particularly healthy condition, and a number of matters urgently demand the attention of Mr. Alfred Robens, the new Chairman. First, in the context of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Fylde, Mr. Robens must enforce drastic economy and start right at the top in Hobart House. Bureaucracy there is violently overloaded, and the fewer administrators there are at the centre and more and more devolutionised the organisation is, the more effective will the whole organisation ultimately prove to be.
Second, Mr. Robens must restore the power and spirit of independence of the colliery manager within commercially viable areas, not the stodgy administrative pudding which we have as a Coal Board today.
Third, Mr. Robens would do well to fight bureaucracy and instil the profit-earning habits of private industry into the National Coal Board. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheap coal."] Socialist Members dislike the word "profits". They conveniently omit the fact that the estimated loss forward of the National Coal Board to 31st December, 1960, is £70 million. I would have the Board as a profit-earning undertaking, not as a loss-making nationalised industry.
Fourth, I would ask Mr. Robens to impress on all his executives at every level that their first duty is to give value for money, good and consistent coal quality—not dirt and rubbish.
The fifth point is to reduce prices to sell coal, not to increase them.
The sixth requirement is to avoid oil competition by demonstrating that British coal, and gas, coke, electricity and steel made from it, is best.
The seventh is to rebuild Britain's coal exports by aggressive selling in Western Europe and elsewhere.
The eighth is to make friends with the private enterprise coal merchants and the co-operatives—for what hon. Members opposite always conveniently forget when they advocate nationalisation of the coal distributive trade is the fact that one of the largest coal merchants in Britain today are the co-operatives. The National Coal Board should make friends with the merchants by giving them service and help, for it is the merchant in the ultimate who will popularise the sale of coal in competition with oil.
The ninth requirement is to encourage the use of modern boiler-house equipment and appliances to burn coal and coke efficiently, economically and smokelessly. [Interruption.] Did somebody say "Ghastly"? To the hon. Member who appears to be confirming his intervention, I will repeat my last few words—

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Nobody said "Ghastly".

Mr. Nabarro: The Coal Board should encourage the use of modern boiler. house equipment and appliances to burn coal and coke efficiently, economically and smokelessly. That has been a statutory responsibility of every Minister of Fuel and Power since 1945. It was the means of propelling through this House, with all-party support, the Clean Air Act of 1956, overwhelmingly supported by Socialist Members. So the hon. Member who says, "Ghastly" is surely a heretic.
Tenth, Mr. Robens should note that when he offers summer price rebates for winter coals he should deliver the coals promptly in the summer time and not forget to do so. I know of nothing in the minds of the general public which so unpopularises the affairs of the National Coal Board as the failure to deliver house coals when rebates in price are offered in the summer time. I was inundated in 1960 and the year before that with complaints of that kind.
Eleventh and lastly, Mr. Robens should tell the coal miners quite bluntly that "enough is enough" and that any more price increases resulting from higher wages can only put the coal miner and his mates out of a job.
If Socialist Members want a policy for coal, there are the eleven points. That


is what Mr. Alfred Robens, as Chairman of the Coal Board, should adopt as his policy, and when hon. Members opposite read it in cold print tomorrow and perhaps go away and give it a second thought they will realise that I am not very far removed from the truth. Furthermore, I am not very far removed from the policy which, if Mr. Robens' statements in this House when he was on the Opposition Front Bench are any guide, may well lead to the redemption—I use the word advisedly—of the financial affairs of this basic industry.
I want to say a word about house coal supplies in the last few months. The Parliamentary Secretary vigorously defended the National Coal Board on the 6th of this month and proclaimed that there was no widespread shortage of house coal. I sit for a Midlands constituency, a highly industrialised constituency in Kidderminster. My hon. Friends who also sit for Midlands constituencies were clamant in their protest about the shortage of house coal, notably due to the difficulties of householders in a winter when we had had a very great deal of rain—almost endless rain for several months. There were my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) and for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) who all complained. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) complained. So did others, including myself. I do not know what the position is with house coal supplies in County Durham or in South Wales. No doubt, supplies there are assisted by substantial tonnages of miners' concessionary coal, but in the Midlands we got too little house coal.
It is manifest nonsense for the Parliamentary Secretary to come here and say that there is no shortage of house coal. I think he qualified that by saying that there was no widespread shortage of house coal. He evoked from the newspapers in the Midlands a very hostile reception to what he said. I think he ought to be informed of this.
The Coventry Evening Telegraph on 7th February reported:
M.P's angered by Coal Shortage Statement. The coal shortage in many Midland towns has provoked angry reactions from both Conservative and Labour M.P.s. Last night they were blaming the Government for refusing to take the shortage seriously.

The Birmingham Post on the following morning, 8th February, said:
 It is true that shortages have varied from district to district, and that not all consumers have been inconvenienced. But a great number have. Mr. Nabarro referred to the 'number of complaints' coming in from Midland towns. Mr. Yates spoke of thousands being unable to stock up for the winter. One recognises the difficulties the Board has to contend with and Mr. George"—
that is the Parliamentary Secretary; I am not being impertinent to him—
may well be right in saying that it is doing its best. But is that best good enough? Coal is a nationalised industry. It is natural that consumers should ask their M.Ps. to look after their interests when things go wrong. It is unsatisfactory if, when Members quote specific cases, they are told that these are not a matter for the Minister; and just as unsatisfactory if. when they give evidence of widespread shortages, they are told they are not widespread enough to be considered general.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the hon. Member agree that, during the last two years, distributors have had their stocks down by two or three million tons and, had they taken the stocks to distribute to the consumer, there would not have been the shortage that there is today?

Mr. Nabarro: I am not sure that the hon. Member is correct.

Mr. Slater: The hon. Gentleman should check up to see whether my hon. Friend is right in what he says.

Mr. Nabarro: I am about to go into that. With his customary generosity, my right hon. Friend sends to me weekly a document called the "Weekly Statistical Statement of the Ministry of Power". I always do my homework before I speak in the coal debate.

Mr. Wainwright: I know the document. That is quite all right.

Hon. Members: Get on with it.

Mr. Nabarro: If hon. Members will stop interrupting me. I will answer the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). He says that the domestic coal shortages to which I referred arose because merchants have run their stocks down. That is his case, in effect. The merchants have not run their stocks down. Their distributed stocks, that is to say, stocks in the hands of the merchants—I quote the most recent figure of distributed coal stocks totalling, on 6th February, 1961, no less than


12,850,000 tons, including distributed stocks of the electricity industry, the gas industry, coke ovens, industrial companies, the railways, iron and steel, merchants and the rest. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Yes, and that figure is actually higher than the comparable figure a year earlier.

Mr. Wainwright: rose

Mr. Nabarro: No. I have given way too much.

Mr. Harold Finch: rose—

Mr. Nabarro: Once more then. I am a very patient chap.

Mr. Finch: Does the hon. Member realise that the position is likely to become worse unless we get more men into the industry?

Mr. Nabarro: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to continue. I have not yet dealt with manpower, but I will do so, if necessary. What I am saying is that distributed stocks of all coal at over 12 million tons are higher than they were at this period last year.

Mr. Wainwright: Evading the question.

Mr. Nabarro: The plain fact of the matter is that there is a grave and widespread shortage of domestic or house coal. Nothing that the Parliamentary Secretary says can gainsay that. It is manifest nonsense for him to come here, as he did on 6th February, and deny that we have a shortage of house coal in the Midland towns. The Severn Valley has been very largely flooded in the last few weeks and thousands of houses have been affected by inundation. Those houses can be dried out only if there is available a ready supply of house coal. It is no longer good enough for either the Minister of Power or the chairman of the National Coal Board to say loftily from their respective Olympian heights that it is the duty of the householder to put domestic coal into stock in the summertime for the winter months.
Today there is a buyers' market for all fuels, industrial and domestic. The only time that the summer stocking scheme worked was where there was a seller's market. There is today a complete reversal of the position. It is the duty of the coal industry, and notably of

the National Union of Mineworkers, to see that the large coals so plentifully available and suitable for the house market in this country are not needlessly broken up by the indiscriminate use of explosives and other methods and to ensure that a highly valuable market for the products of the coal industry, the house coal market, does not go unfulfilled. If there is another winter like this one, when so many households in this country have been bereft of coal, yet more people will switch to oil.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: I have never interrupted my hon. Friend in a speech before. I have listened to all his speech today with great interest, and with a great deal of what he says I agree. It is no part of my task to defend the Parliamentary Secretary, and I should not attempt to do so, but will my hon. Friend explain why, if there is this widespread shortage of house coal, the stocks of house coal are nevertheless greater in their distribution than they were last year? Does it not necessarily follow that what he is complaining about is the lack of stocks held in distributors' hands in the Midlands area?

Mr. Nabarro: That may well be the case. I did qualify what I said by referring to the fact that my experience was in the Midlands towns. Things may be different in County Durham or South Wales, but in the Midlands towns we have little house coal. It is the responsibility of the Minister, the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to put that right.
I come now to the Clean Air Act, 1956, and its implementation. We are notoriously deficient of solid smokeless fuels other than gas coke. During the last few months, a Midlands borough, Solihull, applied for the extension of smokeless zones, or, as they are called smoke control areas. The Minister of Housing and Local Government grants the word, but then the local council finds that it is impossible to implement it because nothing but gas coke is available as a solid smokeless fuel and householders will not readily use gas coke.
My right hon. Friend will recall that the Beaver Report said that to deal with the "black" areas of this country 19 million tons of solid smokeless fuels would be required. The Minister proposes to provide by 1965 only 12 million


tons. The deficiency in solid smokeless fuels is now so great as to largely negative the effect of the Clean Air Act and the need for expansion of smoke control areas in all parts of the country. It is the responsibility of the Minister to see that the Coal Board supplies adequate quantities of solid smokeless fuels.
What is the Coal Board doing about it? It has maintained an expensive research organisation known as Stoke Orchard for the last 12 months or more. Whenever I raise the matter in the House, I am told that large quantities of solid smokeless fuels will shortly be forthcoming from National Coal Board sources. They are now affectionately referred to as "Bronowski bullets" because Dr. Bronowski is the head of the research organisation, not the production organisation. As yet, no Bronowski bullets have made their appearance on the market. The result is that the implementation of the Clean Air Act is being held up all over the country.
It is quite insufficient for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to say that, before the Minister of Housing and Local Government gives his consent, after consultation with the Minister of Power to a new smoke control area, he satisfies himself that sufficient supplies of solid smokeless fuels are available. He means gas coke, but the householder dots not want to burn gas coke on an open fire. The householder wants a premium fuel, and this demand the Coal Board should have been capable of supplying long ago.
There are grave deficiencies in the Coal Board organisation, first, because it has failed to supply adequate quantities of domestic or house coal, and, second, because it is failing to match its second great potential market, the market for solid smokeless premium fuels.
In three-quarters of my speech, I have warmly supported my right hon. Friend. In the last quarter, I have criticised him and his Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that before we debate fuel and power again, there will be no further complaints from the Midlands or elsewhere concerning shortage of house coal, for there should not be in present circumstances, with the Coal Board pressing to sell more and more output every year. Secondly, I hope that the complaints will

end in relation to solid, smokeless premium fuels by the Coal Board launching at an early date the very long promised new product, the "Bronowski bullet", as it has become so affectionately called in the last few years.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Sitting on these benches so long and listening to the gastronomical rumblings, both in and out of the debate, of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) reminds me of a little boy who used to go to my school. He had the biggest boots in the school, and when asked why he wore the biggest boots in the school he always said that he had the biggest feet. It is fairly obvious to me from these benches why the hon. Member for Kidderminster has the biggest moustache in this House.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) listening?

Mr. Nabarro: Very poor stuff, I think.

Mr. Swain: The hon. Member for Kidderminster, in his long and very ragged contribution to this debate, said that I had a vested interest in the coal mining industry. I hereby declare my interest in the mining industry. It is in the lives of three sons and two sons-in-law, who work at the coal face in this great industry. That is the vested interest which I, as a Member of Parliament, have in the coal mining industry—not only the lives of these sons and sons-in-law, but of their families and their children-to-be, which are vested in the future of the mining industry. At no time will they leave the mining industry, unless they are forced to do so by economic circumstances.
I too have passed through a phase of life extending over the past 35 years in the mining industry until coming here, and I saw what the Tory Government's policies towards the miners were from 1925 onwards.

Mr. Nabarro: A congratulatory telegram.

Mr. Swain: The hon. Member for Kidderminster has just received a message. It is probably a congratulatory telegram to himself from Wormwood Scrubs.

Mr. Nabarro: On the contrary, it is a testimony to the efficiency of the General Post Office.

Mr. Swain: I know right up to date what is passing through the minds of the miners, being discussed in the branch meetings, the council chambers or the National Executive of the N.U.M. Great concerned is being expressed in these bodies as to what the future of our great industry is to be. We have experienced a black past in our industry, and, fortunately, the members of the N.U.M., of which I am a very proud one—the hon. Member for Kidderminster never has been one, and therefore cannot speak from experience on that score—are very concerned about what is to happen unless the Tory Government give us a coordinated fuel plan.
I contend that the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Government have a particular obligation to this country to give us a co-ordinated fuel plan, and it should be co-ordination and not competition, because it is out of competition that we can get chaos in the coal industry and in the overall economy of the country. I hope and trust that, when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply, he will be able to give us some information about what is running through the mind of the Government towards a coordinated fuel policy.
One would have thought that, having satisfied the country's requirements after years of exhortation to do better and to work harder, the industry would have been rewarded with a reduction in hours, an additional week of paid holidays or maybe a compensatory payment for the loss of Saturday work, which hits the lower-paid men severely; but nothing like that at all has occurred. The obvious reason is that this Government would not allow it. In spite of protests and suggestions for a modern fuel policy by the N.U.M., the Government instead introduced a policy of cuts and closures, and now we read that parts of the country are desperately short of coal. I will deal with the complaint of the hon. Member for Kidderminster about the shortage of house coal and give what, to my mind, are the root causes for that shortage, in a moment or two.
It is all so simple to some people—"Chuck them on the scrap heap in 1957

and drag them off in 1960." That is what the Government have done to the coal miners. I suggest that there is no basic industry in this country which can be operated on an economy of boom and slump, on which the Tories have been running this country in the past few years. The National Coal Board cannot plan for the mining industry to turn 200 million tons in 1960 and only 186 million tons in 1961, and perhaps have to go back to 200 million tons in the following year. There has to be co-ordination and planning inside the Coal Board at all levels, and faces cannot be worked and pits cannot be planned unless this planning is done over a long term.
What the miners consider should have been their greatest reward was that the Government should have formulated a plan for fuel which would have guaranteed social and industrial security for the miners and their families, and that is the view which is running through the minds of the mineworkers today. They tell us that they have been let down tremendously by the Tory Government—the same Government which exhorted the miners and the National Coal Board to produce coal at a loss because it was in the interests of the country. What has happened? The moment that we turn the corner and start to go downhill, the mineworkers and the industry are to be placed on the scrapheap, with the full co-operation of hon. Members opposite.
To deal with the points made about the shortage of house coal by the rumblings of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, the Coal Board had to introduce into the coal pits some time ago a concentrated scheme of mechanisation. In the pit where I last worked, we introduced a machine and I worked on it. It would frighten some hon. Members to death to see it. In the cutting head of this machine there are 457 cutting picks, and the chain in this cutting head was going round at 200 revolutions per minute. It was cutting a seam of coal 7 ft. 4 ins. thick from floor to roof, and the coal produced by that machine in bulk tonnage was considerably less in size than that of the coal required for house coal. That inevitably had to be, because when this machine was produced and first introduced into the pit there was a great cry for coal. The installation of that machine at one coal face cost the


National Coal Board £58,000. If the Board had to scrap that machine overnight in the interests of large coal production it would lose that sum of money. That machine is still working and is producing—this will be very interesting to the hon. Member for Kidderminster who criticised the English coal mining industry and compared it with that of Germany—l0·9 tons of coal per man shift, a tremendously high output per man shift of which that pit is rightly proud.
Another reason why there is a shortage of house coal is that, owing to Government policy of closures and economic cuts, the Coal Board has had to close uneconomic units. They were uneconomic only because they could not be mechanised in order to grind the coal almost into powder and produce a very high tonnage. These pits were producing by hand-got methods by far the highest quantity of large coal. That is a point which hon. Members opposite do not appreciate. This was coal which was mined by hand-got methods which we consider in the East Midlands as obsolete because of our rich seams—and thank God they are obsolete because of the arduous nature and danger of the task which has to be performed in mining this coal. These were the pits classed by the Tory Government and by the supporters of the Tory Government as uneconomic units because they took quantity instead of quality as the yardstick. I therefore contend that it is largely owing to Government policy right along the line that [there have been local shortages of house coal.
In contradiction to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who has so indecently left his seat before the Member following him finished his speech, and in spite of the bleatings of the sheep and the rumblings of the "Wild Bull of the Pampas" opposite, there has never been during the last twelve months an acute or widespread shortage of house coal. I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the Committee who know anything about the mining industry will defend the Coal Board to the last letter on that score.
I have some very interesting figures, which will astound the hon. Member for Kidderminster—who no doubt will be in the Smoke Room at this moment—to compare the efforts of one division of the

mining industry with that which was so loudly quoted. I admit that the division about which I want to speak, the East Midlands, has geological advantages over most other divisions. We in the East Midlands do not claim to be supermen. We merely claim to have the best geological conditions for the mechanisation of coal-getting. I will not quote all the figures, because many hon. Members wish to speak, but the overall saleable output in 1960 in the East Midlands division was 44,059,000 tons, a planned decrease compared with 1959 of 718,000 tons.
I can never understand why we should set targets in an extracting industry provided that industry is playing its right and proper part in an expanding economy instead of in a Tory contracted economy. The most important figure is the one relating to output per man shift. The output per coal face worker for 1960 in the East Midlands was 119·2 cwt. I challenge any division in any country to produce under the same conditions a higher output per man shift than the East Midlands achieved in 1960. That was an increase of 7·2 cwt. over 1959.
Hon. Members can see that we in the East Midlands are an expanding industry internally, but we are having to work inside an overall generally contracting economy. Inevitably, this means that in the not too distant future we will again have to suffer a reduction in manpower, thereby creating social problems in and around the mining areas in order to maintain our target of 44 million tons. If we maintain the same number of men in the East Midlands division and keep expanding our output per man shift by 7·2 cwt. annually but are allowed to turn only 44 million tons of coal, inevitably manpower has to be reduced in the not too distant future. When that happens and when men are made redundant only the people who reside in the mining areas understand the social problems which are created. In an expanding division like the East Midlands there should be no need—and it is criminal neglect on the part of the Government if there is need—for men to have to uproot themselves and their families from their homes and to have to go to other parts of the country. It is a social problem for which the Government are responsible and of which the Government should take cognisance.
From 1946 to 1960, the overall output in the East Midlands division—I quote these figures because of the statements of the hon. Member for Kidderminster—has risen by 42·1 per cent., an astronomical rise in output under any circumstances. This is the answer to the carping critics on the benches opposite who, if they were doing a crossword and the clue was "Manual labour". would put down "Spaniard".
The Tory Party is the sworn enemy of nationalisation. Time and time again it has declared that under no circumstances will it "wear" nationalisation. Even at the expense of the economy they will go to the bitter end in their attempts to denigrate nationalisation. By not fulfilling their obligations to this nation in formulating a co-ordinated fuel policy, the Government are doing everything in their power to denigrate the mining industry as an instrument of torture against nationalisation. I accuse the Minister of Power and the Parliamentary Secretary and every Member of the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, of sabotaging the economy by sabotaging its basic industry, coal mining.
I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate he will have something constructive to tell us. It may be that there is someone on the benches opposite with a little more thought than the hon. Member for Kidderminster. All I can say is that it was a good job that the Prime Minister was not present, otherwise, no doubt, he would have moved the hon. Member to the Front Bench to take the place of the Parliamentary Secretary and put the Parliamentary Secretary back in the place of the hon. Member for Kidderminster on the back benches. The hon. Member imagined that he was putting forward a wonderful plan. We were discussing the elementary stages of that kind of plan in the primary school in 1914.
I hope, therefore, that we shall hear something from the Government. If they need any help—and, heaven knows, they do at this moment—I refer them with all sincerity to the plan which has been so thoughtfully worked out by the Trades Union Congress, the Labour Party and the National Union of Mine-Workers. It is a plan of which we on

this side are justifiably proud. If we were in Government—it is to the detriment of the nation that we are not—we would implement that plan without hesitation, because we know that if the mining industry is allowed to be wrecked, there cannot possibly be any hope for the economy of our great country.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. John Harvey: I will not follow the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) in some of his wilder remarks. We could all cheerfully throw party political badinage around the Committee indefinitely, but I doubt whether it would advance the cause either of the miners or of the sensible power policy, which many of us, on all sides of the Committee, would like to see pursued.
My interest in the oil industry has already been declared for me in an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). I hope that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale will accept from me that his imputation about the company with which I am connected was wildly inaccurate and that it is, indeed. a prospering little concern.

Mr. M. Foot: If I have made a mistake in the name of the company, certainly apologise.

Mr. Harvey: I thank the hon. Member.
I should like to touch upon one or two aspects that might help a little among some of the things that have been said today. From both the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) we had alarmist statements about the possibility of the world's supplies of oil running out by the end of the century or within a few years thereafter. It should be made abundantly clear that the proven reserves of oil in the world today are more than forty times the annual off-take of oil by all sorts of consumption.
It should be added that for more than a decade it has been the annual practice of the oil industry to add more to the proven reserves than is subtracted from them. In other words, the amount of proven reserves has increased from year


to year and there is every reason to believe that it will continue to do so. It is, therefore. relevant to say to both the hon. Member for Southwark and to the hon. Member for Aberdare that at least one eminent petroleum geologist has recently suggested that the world's resources are good enough for at least 2,000 years to come. That puts us a little further ahead than the end of the century or a few years after then.

Mr. John Hynd: The hon. Member mentioned that the reserves have increased year by year, although consumption has risen. Is it not the case, however, that the curve, which went upward regularly until last year, has now begun to move downwards, and that the amount of increase in the reserves is becoming less?

Mr. Harvey: That may be the fact at this precise moment, but one cannot talk about a curve that went upwards until last year and then turned downwards and suggest therefrom that it has turned downwards for ever. My point is still valid, that at least one eminent petroleum geologist has claimed that the reserves are good enough for 2,000 years to come. The hon. Member for Southwark will agree that that is not exactly bringing the next generation or so into question when we talk about the availability of reserves.

Mr. Probert: Can the hon. Member reconcile those remarks with authoritative sources in America, which state that in 1960-65, or, to be more optimistic, in 1975, American production will have reached its peak and will not be able to meet American needs?

Mr. Harvey: What the hon. Member overlooks is that production in America is prorated. It is not the full amount that could be produced if America went flat out. Production is deliberately limited. I do not know the figure in Texas, for example, at this moment in time, but for many years the figure which has been maintained has been between nine and twelve days' production per month. What the Americans could produce in an emergency if they decided to go flat out is something quite different. It is important, therefore, not to confuse ourselves between these two different sets of figures on completely different bases.
The hon. Member for Southwark also talked about the balance of payments

and suggested that there might be a deficit of as much as £100 million due to the import of oil. That was adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. It is, however, also important to bear in mind the tremendous sums of money that are spent here in various ways, not only by oil companies which build up sterling balances in Britain but by oil countries—for instance, in the Middle East and Venezuela—which build up sterling balances, too, and buy goods and services of one sort and another here and who, not least, have contributed considerably to our shipbuilding industry over the last few years in the tankers which have been ordered here. We all hope that this will continue in the years ahead. One must, therefore, take a great many factors into consideration before talking too easily about the importation of oil being a cost to the national economy.
I should like now to speak of the size of the problem. A number of hon. Members opposite have talked about oil as though it is something that competes seriously with coal and as though there is, therefore, an urgent need to do something to limit importations of oil in the interests of our domestic coal industry. The amount of gas oil, diesel oil and fuel oil delivered into consumption in this country suggests that not more than, at most, 9 to 12 million tons of coal could be saved for the coal industry if every possible source now using oil was compelled to use coal.
If, therefore, it is realised that we are talking of 9 to 12 million tons coal equivalent in a coal industry which produces about 200 million tons per annum, the size of the oil versus coal argument is reduced to something like its correct perspective. Surely it is of the utmost importance that we should endeavour to produce as efficiently as we can, and to maintain as efficient an economic machine as we can, throughout our industry.
We have debated on a number of occasions in the House over recent weeks the need to export more, the need to make ourselves more efficient, yet if we were to adopt the suggestion put forward in the leaflet "Fuel and Power; an Immediate Policy", issued by the Labour Party and the trade unions last year, and adopt the policy of putting a


tax of lid. per gallon on fuel oil, the net result would be to clamp a tax of 20 per cent. on the cost, for instance, of the fuel oil at present used by the steel industry.
In other words, it would be adding an appreciable burden to the cost of producing steel at a time when it is of the utmost importance that we should avoid adding any more than is absolutely necessary to costs such as these.

Mr. William Blyton (HoughtonleSpring): The Conservative Government, in 1935, put a 1½d. gallon tax on oil to protect coal when the coal owners had the coal industry.

Mr. Harvey: I am aware that this may have been done in 1935. I am suggesting that it would be an exceedingly unwise thing to repeat the experiment in 1961. To add this burden to our steel industry at the present time would send prices up.
There is no question about that, and it would add to the burden which the whole of industry has to bear, because it follows that when the price of steel goes up many other costs begin to follow it up at once. Of course, the rise would not be confined to steel production. If we say that the oil industry should find ways and means of not passing on the cost or of absorbing the tax itself, we have still defeated the object of trying to force the price of oil up nearer to the price of coal. We cannot try to rule the economy in that way. It would be madness deliberately to try to make fuel oil less competitive because coal is not sufficiently competitive in present circumstances.
I would say to hon. Gentlemen that it is important to bear in mind that there are many hon. Members, when we are talking about trading difficulties today, who would still say that one of the answers to our trading difficulties is to open still wider the prospects for East—West trade. Yet, if we accepted that formula and allowed the Soviet Union to ship to this country all the petroleum products that that country undoubtedly brings considerable pressure on my right hon. Friend to admit to this country, then fuel oil prices today would be debased even further and the difficulties of the coal industry enormously increased as a result of that step. This is

a serious matter that needs to be borne in mind.
I give way to no one in my desire to see this country pursue a sensible fuel policy. I agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East that the miner is entitled to know where he stands in the context of this fuel policy which we must feel our way towards. I do not subscribe to the belief that coal should be allowed to go to the wall if it cannot make itself efficient in terms of prices, because it is the only indigenous fuel that we have and, therefore, I think that it has an appreciable strategic value from our point of view if nothing else. We should remember that.
Coal must, therefore, continue to play a most important part in our economy. It has been suggested that about 200 million tons per annum might be the right sort of mark for the future of the coal industry. I suggest that over and above that there should be free competition between the coal and oil industries because for so much of our economy they serve different needs and there is no doubt that oil can in many ways give us an efficiency and an economy in industrial production which we might not otherwise be able to get, and a degree of cleanliness, too, that is important.

Mr. Wainwright: If the hon. Member is so confident that competition should continue between oil and coal, would he agree that the oil industry ought to be responsible to the Government for the amount of money which the Government are paying for bulk storage oil, which is about £7·9 million per year?

Mr. Harvey: That depends on the reason for which this bulk storage is taking place. It must be remembered that the industry itself finances a considerable amount of bulk storage. If the Government bulk storage were for completely strategic purposes not immediately connected with the industry, I would not subscribe to that argument.
I think that the place of coal must be recognised in the future of our economy and that we must, therefore, plan as efficiently as possible the way we use our coal resources. We should, as far as possible, make sure that our new power stations can use either coal or oil where it seems desirable that they should be able to use both fuels, and we should locate as many of our power stations as


possible in places where they will be able to make the most economic and efficient use of coal. I would far prefer to see new power stations sited in that way, rather than new hydro-electric stations, infinitely more expensive, built at this time.
I also believe—and here I may not take everyone with me, on either side of the Committee—that opencast coal has some part to play in all this. I say this for one or two reasons. First, the then Minister, in 1956, gave the industry an assurance that about 12 million tons of opencast coal would be needed for at least ten years to come. On the basis of that assurance, the industry imported and put money into all sorts of expensive machinery for the production of this relatively small quantity of opencast coal. Then, of course, it was the only aspect of the Coal Board's activities at one time which contributed any sizable profit, until part of it had to be axed.
Only a matter of weeks ago several hundred tons of large coal which had been unearthed was ordered to be buried again because a contract had expired and that large coal was thought to be an embarrassment by the Coal Board. This does not seem to me to be a very sensible way of carrying on. I should have thought that it would have possibly been helpful to the Coal Board to have had available to it at least some small part of its production which would yield relatively high profits for a minimum of disturbance, and I think that this matter should be 'reconsidered by my right hon. Friend.
I have no wish, in an evening when we have had some long speeches, to detain the Committee much longer. I hope that some of the points that I have made about the oil industry will be taken by some hon. Members opposite. I hope that they will recognise that there is no need, and no sense, in trying to imagine that there is some vital competition going on between the coal and oil industries. Each has a most important part to play if we are to have an efficient economy. Oil should play a most important part and should, in my submission, be allowed to play its part without any artificial interference.
I recognise that many hon. Gentlemen, I think on both sides, are rightly concerned that the coal industry should

know precisely where it is to stand in the months and years immediately ahead, and that my right hon. Friend has already gone a long way in helping to shape things a lot more satisfactorily than we have been able to see them in considering this problem in earlier debates. I feel that we are now moving along the right lines. I hope that the new Chairman of the Coal Board will be given the support which I think he is entitled to expect from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in the very difficult job that he has to do. I am certain that he will have the support of my right hon. Friend, and we wish him well in his new and difficult assignment.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pentland (ChesterleStreet): I think that many of us on this side of the Committee will agree with a great number of the observations made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey), and particularly that the miner is entitled to know where he stands. That is part of our problem. To know that is our major task here today. We want to know the exact part coal will play in the economy of the country. When we have the answer to that, then the miner will have his answer on the question of where he stands in his employment.
I was very interested in the hon. Member's observations, with which I agree, about bringing power stations to the coalfields and the neighbouring areas. I entirely endorse that. We should like to see them come to the Durham coalfield. We need new industry there, and our prospects of having new industry would be greatly enhanced if whe had a power station on the doorstep of the Durham coalfield.
We always find in these debates on the coal industry that it is extremely difficult to limit ourselves to any one or two of the aspects of the problems facing us, because the range of the subject is so wide. I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, so I intend to make a short speech, and I shall confine myself to only a few of these problems and to trying to reinforce some of the pleas which have already been made by my hon. Friends.
A good deal has already been said about the financial position of the National Coal Board both inside the


Committee and outside. I say at once that we on this side could easily prove that, all things being equal, the Board has been a financial success. We can prove that quite easily. I want to reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill), who referred to the high interest rates paid to the previous coal owners in compensation. One of the most foolish things the Labour Government between 1945 and 1950 did was to hand such generous terms as they did to the former coal owners, I was a coal hewer in the pit myself when that Measure went through. The language we used in the pits about those compensation terms could not, of course, be repeated in this Chamber where I have to use Parliamentary language.

Colonel Lancaster: Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that the trading results for 1959 and 1960 have any bearing on the compensation. The trading results in 1960 were deplorable. How does the hon. Member explain that?

Mr. Pentland: The hon. and gallant Member knows full well, because in the four and a half years I have been a Member of Parliament we have debated on other occasions, the financial aspects, that I go back to 1947. I do not go back only to 1959 and 1960.
The hon. and gallant Member remembers the pleas which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) for a review of the guarantee agreement which the Government had on prices, under which the Coal Board are not allowed to raise prices at a time when, if it had been allowed, it would probably have made £400 million profit. That was a year when it paid £70 million for coal imported into this country. There were subsidies for American coal coming here. If the Board had been allowed, as a commercial interest would have been allowed, to charge the real price of coal at that time, when there was a dire shortage of it in this country, and when the industrialists were getting the cheapest coal in Europe, probably the cheapest in the world, it would have made a substantial profit, but the Board was held to that agreement by the Tory Government. If we leave that business aside

then we can say the Board has certainly been a financial success.
I reiterate that one of the great mistakes the Labour Government made was to pay out these too generous compensation terms to the former coal owners. When we thought of some of the dilapidated and decrepit holes in the ground left by some former coal owners—not all of them, but some of them—we in the pits said, at that time, that the coal owners ought to have been made to pay compensation to the nation. I would ask the Government to look at the interest rates paid on the compensation. Millions of pounds are paid in interest rates every year. Compensation is still being paid for pits which have been out of existence for years. Some pits have gone out of existence since the advent of nationalisation and still those coal owners are being paid large rates in compensation terms. I only hope that when the Labour Party is returned to power it will do something about this, because it is certainly a millstone round the neck of the coal industry.
A lot has been said, quite rightly, today about the manpower position. It is right that it should be emphasised strongly because it is of the utmost importance to this industry today. It is not only today that this manpower problem has been brought to the attention of this Committee. Some of us directed the attention of the Government to this over two years ago in a debate on fuel and power.
Strangely enough, in January, 1959, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, then Minister of Power, referred to it in another place, when he said, referring to the Government's being alive to the social and human problems brought about by unemployment among the miners:
They also realise—and I would ask your Lordships to be good enough to bear this in mind—that if the coal industry's manpower fell beyond what was necessary to produce the annual coal supply needed when industrial production resumes its upward trend, we could again face embarrassing fuel shortages of the same order that arose in the early post-war years." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st January, 1959; Vol. 213, c. 691.]
That was Lord Mills himself, who warned the country at that time about the manpower problem.
I, also, in the debate we had on 6th February two years ago—and I am supporting my hon. Friend the Member for


Southwark (Mr. Gunter), whom I congratulate on a very able and vigorous speech today—said:
What will the Government do about the fears of an insufficient labour force in the pits if industrial production assumes its upward trend? From where will they get the miners? Do they think that we are still living in the days when the supply of miners could be turned on and off like a tap? I can assure them that that is not the position today. Many miners now unemployed will never again go down the pits, and neither will they encourage their sons to do SO."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 746.]
That is what we said two years ago on this vital question.
This danger of a depleted labour force is not a danger only to the Board itself; it could, in the final analysis, constitute a grave danger to our economy, because if we have not the men to man the industry the country will have a dire shortage in supplying its energy requirements in the very near future.
The Minister referred today to the manpower problem. He said that it was not so urgent and that men were coming back into the industry, but I would draw his attention to a Question which I put to the Minister of Defence on 11th May, 1960 I asked:
how many men of 18 to 25 years of age, whose previous occupation was in the coal-mining industry of Great Britain, have joined Her Majesty's Forces during the years 1957, 1958, 1959, and to the latest available date in 1960, stating each year and each divisional area of the National Coal Board separately".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1960; Vol. 623, c. 413.]
The figures that I was given showed that in 1957 2,008 lads joined Her Majesty's Forces, in 1958, 3,472 joined, and in 1959, the number was 3,305.
The latest available date for the Minister at that time was up to 31st March. 1960, and 634 lads had then joined, making a grand total of 9,419 young men between 18 and 25 years who left the pits during that period and joined the forces. If, in putting my Question, I had gone back to the age of 17, and forward to the age of 26, I probably would have been told that many hundreds and may be thousands more had left the pits.
These are tragic figures, because not only have these men left the pits to join the Armed Forces, but they are probably lost to the industry for all time. Just as important is the fact that the Coal Board

spent thousands of pounds in training these lads to become experts in modern mining techniques and now they are lost for ever to the industry. The manpower position in the industry at the end of 1959 was that 633,090 were employed. At the end of 1960 the figure was 582,950, a total reduction of 51,040. The total wastage for 1958–59 was 73,525 and the recruitment figure was 26,374.
I could not understand the Minister saying so clearly today that the position was better than it was in 1959, because the total wastage in 1960 was 93,603 and recruitment was only 42,557. These are very serious figures. It is just as well that today hon. Members on both sides of the Committee should emphasise the importance of once again bringing back an essence of security to men in the pits in order to get those who have left back into the pits and also to hold this drift away from employment there.
The Minister referred today to the export position. It was encouraging to hear that our exports of coal improved last year, but I can foresee many difficulties ahead for us in the export trade unless the Government do something about it. At present, we face import restrictions from the coal-producing countries which are members of the European Coal and Steel Community. There is fierce competition from Poland. We know that Poland is selling coal to the remaining European markets for any price that a buyer cares to mention and that she wishes to have foreign currency brought into the country at all costs.
The Russians are doing the same thing. I had the privilege, in July of this year, of being a member of an inter-Parliamentary Union delegation which visited the Soviet Union. During our stay in Moscow I had the pleasure of having a long discussion with the chairman and secretary of the Soviet Mineworker's Union. They told me quite frankly that their pits were uneconomic and that the Government were spending millions of roubles in subsidising the coal industry in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless—and I mention this in passing, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who, unfortunately, is not now in his place—the miners are the top-paid industrial workers in Russia.
The Russian miner can retire at the age of 50 if he so desires. If he has worked twenty years in the industry he can take any five consecutive years of the last ten in order to strike an average of his pension entitlement. In other words, if over those five years he had an average wage of £20 a week in our money his pension would be £10 a week. If he continues working, as most of the miners there do because they are quite healthy and strong, at 50 years of age he receives 50 per cent. of that £10 pension in addition to his wages. He therefore would receive £20 wages every week plus £5, which would be 50 per cent. of his pension entitlement. The surface worker retires at 55 years of age on a similar basis.
This demonstrates what can be done in a country where pits are heavily subsidised. Yet we have complaints from the hon. Member for Kidderminster and others about wage increases paid to our miners. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kidderminster is not now in his place. He talked as "daft" as it was possible for anyone to talk today about wages and the position of the coal industry. He made nothing less than a direct attack on his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, and time and time again he went out of his way to villify the efforts of miners and the Coal Board.

Mr, John Eden: rose—

Mr. Pentland: I am referring to the hon. Member for Kidderminster.
I should like to refer to a wage claim granted to miners in 1956, when I worked in the pits. The day-wage men have again just had an increase in wages and now we see that the National Health Service charges are going up. It should be remembered that this means that men suffering from industrial injuries, from pneumoconiosis, fibrositis and other diseases, who need medicines regularly will have to pay these increased charges just like anyone else.
In February, 1956, a wage claim was negotiated on behalf of 300,000 or 400,000 day-wage men. A final agreement was reached whereby the National Union of Mineworkers accepted 2s. 4d. a shift for the day-wage workers. But

the Coal Board at that time recognised that Is. 7d. of that wage increase was necessary to restore the real wage value that was being paid to the miners at that time, so that in all the miners had an increase of 9d. per shift.
We accepted it, but what happened? The very next day the Tory Government reduced the subsidy on milk by £38 million and the subsidy on bread by £23 million, and following that there was an increase in the Bank Rate. In our opinion at the pits the action of the Tory Government at that time had completely eliminated any gain that the miner had received from the wage increase.
The same policies are being put into effect again today. The hon. Member for Kidderminster and others should recognise that when wage increases are granted and accepted, certain policies put into effect by a Tory Government can always eliminate them and put the miners back where they were before.
I have drifted a long way from the export problem, but I return to it, and I have to do so and to refer to these things in order that hon. Members will know the true facts and not read a pamphlet and think that the pamphlet is a conviction. The export problem is a serious matter and the kind of thing that disturbs me about it was to read in the Press, some weeks ago, that a big power station in Denmark had bought a consignment of coal from Russia at a delivered price of 51s. a ton.
According to the Coal Board marketing experts, it is calculated that, allowing for a 2,250 mile rail journey and trans-shipment by sea, it boils down to the fantastic price of 21s. a ton. That is comparable with about 50s. a ton of coal from our best pits. We all know that that is an Unreal price, but, nevertheless, that is the kind of competition that the Coal Board has to face up to in the remaining European markets that are outside the Coal and Steel Community. I do not pretend that I know the answer to this problem but I feel certain that, here again, if our coal export trade is to have any chance at all, we must have Government help and Government encouragement. In other words, in this field also it calls for a political solution to the whole of the problem.
It is quite true that today there is a quiet air of optimism prevailing in our coalfields which, quite frankly, we all know was missing a year ago. That is all to the good and it is better that way. However, I ant convinced that, despite what the Minister said this afternoon, if certain questions are not answered by the Government and certain action is not taken, in the final analysis this optimism could be very ill-founded indeed. I would, therefore, ask the Government these questions—as I did my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark.
Can a categoric assurance be given today as to the part that oil, nuclear energy, and coal will play in the future in the economy of the country? What is the production capacity that is required of the coal industry? Is it to be tied to a lower level of demand or have the miners to "get cracking" again and chase every last ton of coal? These are the questions to which answers must be given, because in the answers lies the solution to some of the major problems now facing the Coal Board.
The important fact today—as several of my hon. Friends have emphasised time and time again—is that the industry must know where it is going; it must know what lies in store for it. If a political decision is not taken which will enable this industry to plan its way forward into the future, all the great endeavours that the Coal Board has entered into in reconstructing this industry technically, physically and spiritually, will he of no avail. In the end, the consequences will not fall only on the mining community alone, but on Britain as a whole.
I look forward to the future, as we should do, and as we in the industry are entitled to do, but the stark fact remains that we must know where the coal industry is going. My hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East have said the same thing. We have often paid lip service to the fact that coal is a major part of our economy and will remain so for so far as we can see into the future.
In an article which the Minister wrote in the Financial Times of 3rd January, 1961, the right hon. Gentleman said:
In this country coal remains and will long continue to be the basic primary fuel on which the British economy rests. It supplies

today three-quarters of our total energy requirements. Although other forms of primary fuel will contribute increasingly to the task, we shall rely principally on coal for a long time to come. The well-being and efficiency of the coal industry, and its capacity to render the service the community needs, are primary objectives of our national policy.
We can all agree with that, but the Minister may as well face up to the fact that if the Government are to bring these objectives to a successful conclusion, as he says he hopes to do, there will have to be a drastic change in the Government's present policy affecting the industry. In other words, hon. Members on this side are convinced—and we are very serious about this—that there will have to be put into effect a plan for the joint development of coal, gas, electricity and nuclear energy; a policy of coordination of all our fuel-producing industries which, furthermore, the Cabinet would accept as having full Ministerial responsibility. That is very important also.
We ask for this, although I hope that it is understood that we do not do so as one would ask for charity. There are 16 pits in my division and I would ask every man working in them to come out of those pits if, by a magic wand, the Government could transplant industries there so that they could start work tomorrow, and if such industries offered them security in employment. Every hon. Member on this side who represents a mining constituency would do just that, I am quite sure.
We ask for this, not as one would ask for charity, but we say that the Government have a duty to the nation to bring, forward such a plan. We ask for this not only in the interests of the miner and his family alone, but in the conviction that this vital industry should be given every opportunity to contribute in full measure to the prosperity that the people of Britain are entitled to in the years that lie ahead.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Pentland) and I will refer later to his main contention about a Government plan for the future use of fuel.
I should like to comment on the remarks made by the hon. Member


for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), who accused the Government of sabotaging the miners out of a Tory hate for nationalisation. It seems to me that we might usefully compare what happened in the European Coal and Steel Community, which is a very similar organisation to what we have in this country, and one of which we might well find ourselves members. Some hon. Gentlemen on both sides are interested that Britain should join the European Coal and Steel Community, and the Government have offered to join it as part of a bargain which would help to get us into the Common Market as a whole. Insufficient consideration has been given to this possibility and the effect that it would have on fuel industry's plan.
The ultimate aim of the Coal and Steel Community is the complete integration of production throughout. It would work towards a common price structure for goods of the same quality. It would work on a basis of fair competition between the various countries and the various pits with no subsidy or tariff or other advantage whatsoever between the various countries. It would work towards equal wages in the various countries of the Community. For instance, in Germany at the start the wages of miners were 27 per cent. higher than in Belgium, and that gap has already been narrowed considerably. It would work towards the same social benefits as part of the cost of employing labour. Finally, it would work towards full mobility of labour so that when there was a shortage in one area and a surplus in another, men would be enabled to transfer irrespective of national frontiers.
The fuel policy of the Six has been very similar to what was experienced in this country. After a period of shortage of coal, which went on until 1957, suddenly demand started to drop. There was a surplus of coal, and the competition from oil became increasingly severe. They were a little quicker than we were to take action, but, broadly speaking, they took the same sort of action as was taken in this country. I cannot help thinking that a comparison between Western Germany, particularly, and ourselves is extremely striking. Western Germany stopped imports except for a quota of coal which was being imported under contract from America. It started to close pits which were uneconomic, and it put some of the miners on

short time in the most helpful way it could. Its stocks started to accumulate, but it did not allow them to rise to anything like the level to which ours rose, and it managed to keep the situation more in hand. Manpower left the pits in the same way as it has done in this country.
If we were members of the European Coal and Steel Community—and we might easily be—we should have had to join in the same measures as have been taken in the countries of the Six with regard to our mining industry. I think that the result would have been a slightly more intense application of the policies which the Government and the National Coal Board have applied in the last few years. They have reduced production and tried to hold prices steady, as we have. Perhaps we should have had to close pits a little faster if they were uneconomic.
It is important to remember that there would have been above us a supranational authority in the form of a High Authority which would have made decisions reached or speeches made in the House very much less effective than they are at present. We should have been under orders from the High Authority to carry out such-and-such a policy and, maybe, to close pits or to stabilise wages or to change the price of coal to a greater extent than we are at present prepared to do.
These things are, of course, possible, and it is necessary to try to adjust our attitude to the fuel situation in the light of the possibility that before long we might find ourselves members of this Community, and also to consider the effect on our policy at the present time if we became members of the Common Market and, indeed, what lessons we can learn from that organisation.
The first essential to bear in mind is that our ultimate aim in this matter must be to have as cheap a fuel in this country as we possibly can. Many times in the House we have debated exports. How can we hope to have cheap and competitive exports if we do not have throughout at least the cheapest fuel which it is reasonable to obtain?
The second factor which I should like to underline is that we should have no subsidy of the fuel industry. If every industry were to be subsidised, obviously there would be no industries to pay the subsidy, and we are getting very near


the position when subsidies are paid too easily to private and public industries alike. We should keep Government money for the purpose of mining coal separate and out of the industry. We should keep our prices as low as possible after that, and the only reason which might justify a rise in prices should be the possibility of a loss at the end of the year. I hope that any accumulated deficit of the National Coal Board will not be charged to the taxpayers but will be recouped by greater efficiency or higher prices in the future.
I also think that we must allow consumer choice. No hon. Member opposite has stressed this point very much, but it is surely important to let whoever is going to burn this fuel decide whether he wants coal, oil, electricity, or gas. and to have the particular process or type of heating that he wants. I do not think we can intervene there.
Then we come to the so-called dilemma which the Minister mentioned in his opening speech, that between a completely free policy whereby the forces of the market, and those alone, act, or the so-called national fuel plan which hon. Member's opposite have been urging today. The national fuel plan seems to me to have several disadvantages. The main one—this is perhaps the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Chester-leStreet, that we should set targets for each of the various forms of fuel in the future—is how we are to set targets. How are we to be certain that the targets set mean anything at all? The coal industry might in 1956 have set a target for 1961, and the estimate might have been 20 million or 30 million tons wrong. It is no good setting a target unless one is prepared to accept the consequences of working to the target even though it is wrong; and I do not think we are prepared to accept the consequences. Suppose we set a target for oil for 1965, and then found that the target was grossly too high or too low—we should then be forced to import more or less oil. Similarly with coal.
All businesses which are engaged in production have to make estimates of the future. They have to forecast demands and assess what they need to produce, and those forecasts must change every few months. The difficulty

in business management is to assess demand and how it will change. This is surely the difficulty facing the Board in trying to balance its budget in the future. It must take into account competition and the likely price of coal, and even make a guess at the weather, and many other things. That, surely, is what it has to do.

Mr. H. Hynd: The hon. Gentleman has been saying that a plan is impracticable. Earlier on he was comparing our industry with the Coal and Steel Community of the Six. Is he aware that the Coal and Steel Community has worked out a very complete plan with very scientific forecasting of what the targets should be?

Mr. Ridley: I am aware of that. I am also aware that the plan proved to be extremely wrong in the case of coal. The Community had exactly the same misapprehensions as we did about what was to happen to coal when the situation changed in 1957.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Atomic energy is another example.

Mr. Ridley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) says, the forecast about atomic energy was also wrong.
I want to make a point about reserves of coal—

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member suggested that private industry has to make an assessment of the market and that that assessment has to be adjusted every six months or so. Would he say that that applies in industries with a high initial capital cost?

Mr. Ridley: I think that it does apply, but the difference is that the period over which it is looking is a very much longer one.

Mr. Loughlin: Exactly.

Mr, Ridley: Therefore, the penalties for being wrong are very much greater.

Mr. Loughlin: Capital is expendable.

Mr. Ridley: Nevertheless, every few months a private industry reassesses its position in the light of what it is next intending to invest and what it is to sell. It is a dangerous suggestion to say that capital is expendable.
The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) spoke of looking to our reserves of coal for the future. A strategic consideration, as it might be called, also comes into this argument about whether we are justified in using coal or oil in relation to future supplies of energy in the world.
It seems to me, if one is to use the hon. Gentleman's argument, the most sensible thing to do would be to shut down all the pits and turn exclusively to oil, because then, when difficulty came in the shape of a fuel crisis in the year 2,000 A.D. or of serious war, we should still have our coal reserves underground and could get at them when we needed them. His argument is a two-edged one.
The other point I wish to make concerns the drift of labour and the obvious decline which has taken place in the fortunes of the industry. Members opposite are right about this. The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) pointed out in the recent economic debate that other industries should be brought into areas from which there is a drift of labour and where the quality of the coal is not such as to justify keeping pits open. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street also represents an area with such problems.
I am certain that that is the right policy. We cannot expect to keep pits open in such areas just for the sake of keeping them open, but we must expect to try to provide alternative employment for those who will suffer. Many closures in the past have been due to exhaustion of supplies, but many also to general contraction of demand. If my proposition, that the forces of the market and the estimation of demand must force a change of policy, is accepted, then it is surely right to have a policy of closing pits.

Mr. Edward J. Milne: Now that we have convinced the hon. Member of the correctness of the policy we have been advocating, will he undertake to join us in pressing it on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Ridley: Of course, we should make a forecast of which areas will not be economically useful, and should try to replace the pits in them by other industries. But that is not an easy thing

to do, and it will take time. One cannot complain, as the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street did, that men are leaving the pits and that there is a serious drain of manpower if, at the same time, all one is trying to do is to close pits and replace them with other industries. The two things go together, and not separately.
There is a very great future for the coal industry. I am one of the first to admit that I was surprised when consumption went up in this past year to 203 million tons, and I am delighted that the National Coal Board has been able to lift 7 million tons from the stockpiles. I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting that calculation so nearly right before the event. That was a surprising and intelligent guess.
My doubt is about what will happen next, and it is one that must remain in all our minds. It centres on the question: will consumption go up or down? But I hope that in the next year or so we will allow the commercial considerations to be uppermost in the estimate of what demand will be, and of what effect it will have on employment and the closing of pits and other forms of fuel policy. I hope that by so doing we can make ourselves sufficiently competitive, in dealing with oil on the merits of efficient, modern and effective pits, to he able to join the European Coal and Steel Community, if it be necessary on other grounds.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. David Ginsburg: As other Members on this side of the Committee wish to follow me in the debate, I hope the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will forgive me if I do not proceed immediately to take up the points he has raised. Unlike my colleagues, I myself cannot claim a practical experience of the coal mining industry, but it is only right that voice should be given to the anxieties of my mining constituents.
Dewsbury lies at the western end of the Yorkshire coalfield. It produces a very fine coal, but the pits in my area, although modernised, are comparatively old. Unquestionably, ours is a neighbourhood where there has been an exodus of labour, especially young labour, from the pits, and, indeed, from


the locality in recent years. We are surely entitled to some reassurance about the future.
Above all, my mining constituents—like the constituents of some of my hon. Friends—wish to know where they stand. We say that the mining industry is not something that can be turned on or off like a tap. If investment is lost, or if miners drift away, then that loss may take a generation, or indeed many generations, to make good. What is wanted is a declaration by the Minister of the Government's intentions towards the mining industry.
Such a declaration is the more necessary because the industry has a very fine record of service to the country in recent years. During the economic debate which took place a fortnight ago, there was much reference by hon. Members to league tables, when it was argued that we stood at the bottom of certain leagues and the Government presented the argument that such statements were not of such very great significance.
I wonder if it is realised how different the picture is in the tables showing the position in coal mining. Productivity in the British coal mining industry is at present rising far faster than productivity in our manufacturing industry. Is it realised, despite what has been said, that the price of British coal is the cheapest in Europe? Is it realised that productivity in British mines is higher than the productivity in the mines of all other European countries, apart from Germany? In the case of Germany—and this was discussed earlier this afternoon—there is the special factor that the shift has been lengthened.
The central issue for the Government at the moment is one of knowing whether the energy demand, and in particular the demand for coal, will be adequate in the Immediate years ahead.
That brings me to the problem of forecasting. It is a difficult problem. Allusion has been made to it by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something serious and constructive about the long-term forecasting arrangements in his Ministry. It is not enough that a lot of long-term forecasting is coming from the various component industries such as the electricity industry,

the gas industry, and the oil industry. We get a contradictory picture, and it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what is happening about this in his Ministry. Are the techniques sufficiently sophisticated? We would like to know the assumptions which relate to the various estimates that are being produced with regard to long-term demand.
That brings me to what I think is one of the key points in this debate. Are the Government sticking to their estimate that energy requirements in this country will be 300 million tons of coal equivalent by 1965, or do they now accept the probability that they have over-estimated the position and that demand by 1965—it is now only four years away—is more likely to be 280 million tons? I ask that in all seriousness because it is not just a guess or a shot in the dark. It is a responsible estimate which has been made not only by the National Union of Mineworkers, as the Minister knows, but by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, by Professor Robinson, the Chairman of the O.E.E.C. Energy Commission and by the Chairman of the Institution of Gas Engineers. There is wide agreement on this lower figure and I wish that I could be as optimistic as the Minister has been recently.
If the latter figure is true, if this figure of 280 million tons is likely to be correct. it is very difficult, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) said on a previous occasion, to see a demand for 200 million tons of coal materialising.
I should like to develop that with two subsidiary points. Hon. Members may have read the publication "Fuel Policy in a Free Economy" which was recently circulated by the Esso Petroleum Company, which one must assume is a responsible organisation in this matter. I stress these figures to the Minister. The company estimates the requirements for 1965 as 200 million tons of coal and 74 million tons of oil compared with 188 million tons of coal and 56 million tons of oil in 1959. In other words, the Esso publication, which I say again the company is presumably putting forward in a responsible way, is providing for an increase of 18 million tons in oil consumption over five years.
We are not half way to 1965, and already oil consumption in this country is running at a level of 63 million to 65 million tons a year. With four years to go to 1965, I should have thought that on present trends it was clear that oil consumption would reach a level of 90 million tons by then.

Mr. Skeet: rose—

Mr. Ginsburg: I am sorry, I would rather not give way now because of the time factor and because I want to develop my argument.
If oil consumption standing at 90 million tons is deducted from 280 million tons plus the 10 million tons of the atomic programme, we are left with 180 million tons for the coal industry. This is a serious point, and I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will say whether he accepts my argument or whether he thinks, as I do, that there is a flaw in the figures put forward by the Esso Company.
The reason why we feel a certain pessimism is that it is not reasonable to feel complacent about the increase in consumption from 194 million tons in 1959 to 203 million tons in 1960. There are a series of special reasons why consumption went up in 1960. There was the abnormal change in the weather, and a big change in the production situation between 1959 and 1960—for which hon. Gentlemen take credit. It is therefore extremely difficult to see how coal production will rise very much in the years ahead above the present level of 194 million tons.
If I am wrong about that, again I would appreciate it if the Minister would say what the Government think will be the precise production figures for coal over the next four years.
The picture that I have painted is alarming enough, if there were not, as has already been suggested, serious implications in the present position of the oil industry. We urge the Government to give serious consideration to the point of view of the mining industry because it is an indigenous product, while oil is imported.
What I may describe as the oil partisans continuously refer to the contribution which they say the oil industry is making towards the balance of pay-

ments. What are the facts? My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) said that the facts were extremely unclear. The only facts that I can give the Committee—and I do not think that these will be disputed—are that for 1959 total oil imports were £467 million, to be set against exports of £101 million. By doing some simple arithmetic, there is a difference of £366 million.
The critical question is, are the £366 million which are a drain on the balance of payments covered by an adequate figure of invisible earnings by the oil industry? What are the facts? Nobody seems to know. I seriously suggest to the Minister that he should consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to issuing a White Paper at least on the position of Britain's invisible oil earnings, if not on the whole question of Britain's invisible trade balance in which oil plays an important part.
I hope that I shall be in order, Mr. Williams, if I mention three figures about our invisible account to which oil contributes. Before the war we had a surplus on invisible account of £280 million. In 1950 that surplus had risen to about £444 million. Today it has fallen to £115 million. I know it is not all oil, and of course the question is, how is oil contributing to this outturn. The only figure that I can contribute to this debate is that the earnings of the oil tanker fleet and the property and income of the oil companies are grouped together in the "Others" item in the balance of payments White Paper, and that item includes many things besides oil as well. That suggests that for the period 1950 to 1959 all these items together—non-oil as well as oil items—have risen by only £42 million from £288 million to £330 million.
I will quote a passage from an article on the invisible trade balance and invisible earnings which appeared in the National Institute Economic Review. Having commented on the lack of knowledge which exists in this important sector, the article says:
It may be some years before earnings recover to the 1958 level, since the industry"—
that is, the oil industry—
is becoming increasingly competitive and pressure from the producers for a bigger share of profits is mounting once more.


Anyone who follows world affairs will agree that that trend is likely to continue.
On that evidence, a very serious position is clearly developing as regards oil. The Chairman of the National Coal Board said early this month:
We are told that 1960 was by far the worst year of the United Kingdom balance of payments since 1951, that the deficit may be as high as £150–£170 millions. No less than one-quarter of this deficit can he attributed to the increase in oil imports during 1960.
I know that what I have said has not commanded the universal approval of hon. Members opposite, but I seriously suggest to the Minister that there should be a searching investigation into the economics of the oil industry from the point of view of the balance of payments. The Minister should undertake this inquiry and publish the conclusions fearlessly so that we can decide what action can be taken.
There are many considerations for an efficient coal industry. I have not time to go into all of them. One of the keys to greater efficiency is scientific research. I believe that I shall carry the Committee with me when I say that over the whole range of industries there is a direct statistical correlation between the input of scientific research and the improvements in productivity and efficiency which take place. Not only should there be an improvement in scientific research and a balanced deployment over the whole economy, but there should be the most effective deployment of our scientific research, manpower and funds between the various claimants on resources in the fuel and power industry.
This brings me to the vital question. It has been mentioned already that the nuclear power programme, having been curtailed, will contribute in 1965 about 10 million tons of energy equivalent. I hope that we shall hear some figures later on. Is it not the fact that a disproportionate amount of scientific resources, money and staff are still being devoted to this programme? If coal is to be produced efficiently at low cost, far more scientific advance has to be achieved, first in the coal industry and. secondly, in the gas industry.
I gain support for my submission by quoting briefly what Sir Christopher Hinton has said on this subject. He is

a convert in this matter, because he was once a very energetic partisan of the atomic school. At a recent conference he said:
What the coal mining industry was entitled to ask itself was whether in the broad research field it was getting its full share of the national research effort. This is a fundamental problem which was not considered sufficiently. The danger was that all these exciting conventional technologies tended to get overlooked and given little consideration compared with research projects which were related to defence.
If the Minister wants the maximum advance in the coalmining industry and in the gas industry he should get together with the Minister for Science and ensure that our scientific manpower is properly deployed.
My final consideration relates to the efficient operation of the coalmining industry. It relates, in particular, to financial policy in the industry. The Government wish the nationalised boards to be guided by normal business considerations. I do not quarrel with that point of view, but if it is the Government's policy to see that the nationalised boards are guided by normal commercial considerations it is incumbent upon the Minister to accept the corollary which is implicit in the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. It was applied primarily to the transport industry, but there is no reason why it should not be applied to the coal industry. The Committee says:
Your Committee wish to recommend the principle that where Government action causes a nationalised industry to incur a specific loss, or specific expenditure, which it would not otherwise incur, the Government should take steps to compensate the industry".
Looking around the whole range of coal policy, —stocking policy, and pricing policy—it is obvious that that principle has not been applied which has operated to the industry's disadvantage. There is a case—it has been made already by a number of my hon. Friends—for a complete re-examination of the financial structure of the industry, because if it took place we should see a greater degree of efficiency in financial operations.
The Government have been asked many questions from both sides of the Committee. To summarise the most vital point which has been made so far this evening, I say that the industry should not be left in unnecessary uncertainty. It is surely


the Government's duty to tell the industry what in the light of their judgment is expected of it and to face fearlessly the policy implications of that judgment. It is then for the mining industry, the National Coal Board and the miners to see that the coal is produced efficiently.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I am glad to have had the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Williams, now that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) has had an opportunity to put forward some ideas on the balance of payments. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that purchases of both crude oil and petroleum products in 1960 worked out at about £475 million. We must set against that figure the export of petroleum products, which worked out at £104 million, to which must be added the export of petroleum equipment, which was well in excess of £100 million. An extremely conservative estimate of the value of petrol-chemicals is £30 million.
However, there is a great deal in addition to that. Hon. Members were right to emphasise that the figures for the earnings of the oil industry have not been revealed. It is also right to make clear that only 13 per cent, of the oil is bought in dollars. Therefore, the larger part of it is bought in sterling or in soft currency. Freight charges enter into this argument, because 37 per cent. of the oil is brought in in tankers flying the British flag. This is reflected in the shipping figures. If the freight is at the right figure, the earnings are exceptionally high.
I have seen it estimated that this country would have to export annually about £300 million more if we lost our profits in the Middle East. Hon. Members would do well to bear in mind what our holdings are—a 50 per cent. interest by B.P. in the Kuwait Oil Company; a 24 per cent, interest by both the Royal Dutch Shell Group and B.P. in the Iraq Petroleum Company; and a very substantial interest—over 50 per cent. —by the Royal Dutch Shell Group and B.P. in Iran.
If these are totalled up, it will be seen that the balance is very much in favour of the oil industry and that in fact there is not a net loss. The import of fuel oil up to the end of November last year was

about 2·2 million tons in a year, compared with the export of fuel oil of about 3·4 million tons, so that there is a net gain in exports. Over the whole industry, there is no question of straining the balance of payments position, because there is more in hand.
My right hon. Friend has said that the country's total energy consumption is likely to be 300 million tons of coal equivalent by the late 1960s. There is some doubt about that. The hon. Member for Dewsbury gave a long list of authorities and considered that 270 million tons would probably have to be the figure reached by 1965.
I want to quote a further figure which appeared in one of the Cantor lectures by Mr. Alfred Parker, former fuel research director of the D.S.I.R., who reached the interesting conclusion:
Assuming a continuation of increase in energy demand at about the same rate as during the period 1938 to 1958, the demand would be equivalent to about 280 million tons of coal in 1970…
Looked at the other way round, my right hon. Friend has suggested that we should stabilise the mining industry's capacity at around 200 million tons, but I wonder whether he can hold to that figure. While he is perfectly right not to underwrite any figure for the coal mining industry, the industry is entitled to know what it may have to face in future years.
Consumption of oil in the United Kingdom at the moment is about 40 million tons and, given an average compound increase per annum of 8 per cent., that will build up to 59 million tons by 1966, or a coal equivalent of well over 90 million tons, which falls into line with the figures already advanced by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. Allowing for an extra 10 per cent. coming from hydro and nuclear energy, that leaves 170 million tons to be found by the coal industry.
We come back to the difficult question —what precisely does my right hon. Friend mean when he speaks of a mining capacity of 200 million tons? Does he mean that it will be like the steel industry of the United States where, although it has a capacity of 100 per cent., it may operate at only 50, 60 or 70 per cent. of rated capacity? Does he mean that by 1965 he will have a mining capacity of possibly 200 million tons, while the effective operating capacity may be only 170 million or 180 million tons?
We are all rather worried about the situation and it is only right to say that, whichever prognostication is correct, the figures will have to be studied most carefully and that the mining industry may have to scale down the size of its operations below 200 million tons per year. Obviously, with an industry accommodating three-quarters of the country's energy requirement, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) that the industry is demoralised.
Certain taunts have been made about the fuel oil industry. It may well he that over the past year fuel oil consumption has been about 29 million tons of coal equivalent, but that is only 15 per cent. of the fuel market. There is no case for the suggestion that we should have an imposition of, say, 1½d. per gallon tax on fuel oil. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) said, that would be an additional charge on the steel industry and would lead to a rise in basic costs. But there is another factor to consider.
In recent months, a tax was imposed on light and heavy fuel oils in West Germany. It is interesting to find that that increase did not stop the increase in the sales of fuel oil.
We should look at the pattern in Europe. In the O.E.E.C. area, comparing 1948 with 1959, the proportion of total fuel supplied by the prospective energies show that coal has come down from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent., leaving oil supplying 29 per cent. of the market in 1959.
We could take another example from Europe. In 1948, the total contribution of oil was about 3 per cent., but this year it will be more than n per cent. It has been said that by 1961 oil and natural gas will provide 41 per cent. of total energy consumption in the Soviet Union.
All the trend is therefore in the same direction and the more these fuels run in harmony and partnership the better. The object is to provide industry with an inexpensive basic fuel, for it is essential to keep costs down.
I hope that all this will not be regarded as an attempt by the oil industry to chase people out of the mines. I do not have the fortune to represent a mining constituency, but I fought a mining constituency at a fairly recent election. Hon.

Members who represent mining constituencies have to ask themselves when should they redeploy the men involved in that industry. Have they to wait a number of years, after a number of mistakes have been made, to redeploy them, or should they not be moving ahead as rapidly as the position changes, bearing in mind the consistent pattern which has been followed in Western Europe?
Many people have had a stab at evaluating available world resources of oil. I should like to give some figures. Lewis G. Weeks has recorded primary resources as being 1,900 thousand million barrels, which is equivalent to forty years' supply at the current rate of production. However. these are primary resources, and if we include secondary resources, such things as secondary oils, tar sands and shale oils, the figure is 14,600 thousand million barrels. That will probably take us not only into the next century, but into the century beyond as well.
I promised my hon. Friends that I would not speak for longer than ten minutes, but before I conclude I must say that if we make evaluations too far in advance, we may fall into the trap of failing to take into account a breakthrough in atomic energy and other developments, for example, developing fuel cells and converting energy from the sun. It might be dangerous to look too far ahead, but it is wise to look five or ten years ahead. We can see to the edge of that time, but no more.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) spent a certain amount of time attacking forecasts made by the Ministry of Power, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) also called attention to the importance of forecasting in connection with this problem of fuel and power policy. In fact, this is the key to the question whether or not we have a policy and whether we are seeking to make the policy effective.
The Ridley Committee in 1952 recommended the establishment by the Ministry of Power of a Joint Fuel and Power Planning Board. It is useless to talk about having a policy unless one is prepared to use a policy that is a basis for planning and unless one takes steps to ensure not merely that one's forward


estimates are reasonable and sound but also that they are fulfilled and that steps are taken to fulfil them. This is really what planning and having a policy means.
It is understandable that the present Government are incapable of having an effective fuel and power policy, and still less of planning to ensure that that policy is carried out, because it is contrary to their whole philosophy. It came out very clearly in what was said by the Minister this afternoon, and it has come out perfectly clearly in statements which have been made by previous Ministers of Power or their representatives. For example, when the present President of the Board of Trade was the spokesman in this House for the Ministry of Power. he said on 30th April, 1957:
…the Government must have an overall responsibility for the strategy of fuel policy and must be prepared to intervene, to guide, influence and stimulate where necessary so as to enable us to meet our two main objectives:
He defined these as follows:
first, to ensure that our fuel supplies are adequate; and secondly, that the contribution to our balance of payments from indigenous supplies is as large as we can possibly make it."
He added:
As far as possible, we should allow the balancing of demand and supply of energy to be determined by normal commercial considerations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 36.]
Of course there is the complete contradiction, in which the Government and every Tory Minister of Power is engaged. The Minister has somehow to ride two horses. The present Minister referred to it as following the middle way because, he said, by doing so he was attacked from two directions at the same time—by the planners and by the anti-planners—and he thought that. therefore, he must be about right. In fact, he is doubly wrong, because he now follows neither a planning nor an anti-planning policy consistently but merely gets into a mess. This has come out most clearly of all in the terrible muddle into which the Minister has got in respect of planning forecasting.
Some reference has already been made to this, but first of all I suppose we all recognise that, if one is to attempt to do any sort of planning for the fuel and

power industries, one must begin to make some sort of forecast of future energy demands and, having made those forecasts, one should try as far as possible to keep somewhere near to them. Future energy demand depends upon the general level and expansion of economic demand in the country as a whole.
When we have, under the present Government, industry going up and down at irregular intervals and failing as a whole to reach the targets for expansion which have been set in the past by Tory Ministers, we can see how impossible it is to have really effective forecasts of future energy demand which itself is the key to economic expansion as a whole. We had, for example, in 1955 the famous Government estimate of 300 million tons of coal equivalent by 1965. Then the President of the Board of Trade, speaking in the debate on 23rd July, 1959, still held to this figure of 300 million tons of coal equivalent, although he then admitted that
To reach that figure by 1965 the expansion that is taking place in industry now will have to go ahead very fast, but I still think that it is reasonable to take 300 million tons as a rough figure for the total energy demand in the middle 1960s."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1559.]
There is already a slight shift from 1965 to the middle 1960s.
I put a Question to the Minister of Power to which, in a Written Answer. the Parliamentary Secretary replied on 6th December:
Inland energy requirements in 1961 may not be far short of 270 million tons of coal equivalent … and may rise to about 300 million tons of coal equivalent in the later 1960s."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 11.]
We have shifted from 1965 to the middle 1960s and now we have come to the later 1960s.
There has been a corresponding shift, though not a fully representative one, in regard to the estimate of what would be the share of coal on the basis of these assumptions and if no deliberate action in favour of coal were taken by the Government. We had, first of all, the acceptance by the Government of the Revised Plan for Coal as the coal target for 1965. A figure of 200 million tons is very often used with reference to 1965 when, in fact, the Revised Plan for Coal, produced by the National Coal Board only fifteen months ago, set the


production target for 1965 and set also the consumption estimate for 1965. The latter estimate was that inland coal consumption plus exports would be about 207½ million tons, with a variation either way giving a figure between 200 million and 215 million tons.
More recently, we have had a shift in the Government's statement towards fixing the target at the lower level of 200 million tons. Later still, we had the further shift referred to by the hon. Member for Willesden, East, when the Minister of Power, in reply to a Question from me on 13th February, said:
As I told the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) on 5th December, there are no changes in the estimates of total inland energy requirements which would justify the Board in aiming at a mining capacity of less than 200 million tons in 1965." —[OFFICAL. REPORT, 13th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 918.]
So we have now come down from an estimated consumption of 207½ million tons in 1965 to an estimated production target in 1965 of 200 million tons, and then to an estimated mining capacity of 200 million tons.
How much lower are we to go? What is the use of the Minister saying that everything in the garden is lovely when we only look at what has been happening in the last year and the first three months of this year and see that, contrary to all expectations, demand for coal has risen again and, if we were to proceed on the basis of what has been happening in the past year—as he said to me last Monday—we could expect an energy demand in 1965 of 350 million tons of coal equivalent?
How fanciful can one be in attempts to estimate and plan, when there is really a margin like that between a total estimated energy demand for 1965, on the one hand, of about 280 million tons of coal equivalent and another estimate of 350 million tons of coal equivalent, on the other? How on earth can one plan on such a basis? Not having been able to approach 75 or 80 per cent. accuracy in one's estimates of possible total energy demand in 1965, and having such a tremendous margin of error, if we are still not prepared to settle to some extent the share of the total demand to be taken by the different energy industries, we are really leaving the coal industry without any defined future whatsoever.
The situation is that we know that the nuclear capacity in 1965 is now to be between 9 million and 10 million tons, and there are another 3 or 4 million tons, and perhaps 4 or 5 million tons, which will be accounted for by hydroelectricity and natural gas. We may well be too low, as the hon. Member for Willesden, East said, if the use of oil in this country continues to expand at even a somewhat slower rate than during the past five years. We may well be left with an inland demand for coal of about only 170 million tons in 1965.

Mr. Skeet: Would it be right to stabilise the coal industry at that particular figure?

Mr. Warbey: I have not much time. I will say only that we must stabilise it, but we first have to decide where we are to stabilise it.
What is a reasonable figure, taking into account all the factors? One of the factors which I should take into account is that we must not have too sharp and sudden a run-down in the coal industry, because of the social effects and their cost. That is the first factor. Therefore, I would say that 170 million tons is far too low. We should not fix it at less than 190 million tons, and I say that if we are to aim at a capacity of 200 million tons in 1965, we should guarantee that the consumption—the demand—in that year will not be less than 190 million or 195 million tons, and that we should take whatever steps are necessary to guarantee that that amount will be taken up.
This is the only way in which, as the hon. Member opposite says, we can stabilise production; but also, if we are to avoid all manner of very harmful social and economic consequences for the people of this country in general, and for the miners in particular, we must be prepared to guarantee and underwrite the consumption at a figure round about what we are asking the industry to produce. That can be done only by applying measures of direct planning in order to ensure, one way or another, that oil consumption is adjusted to the appropriate figure; that oil is made to take the adjustment and not coal and that the adjustment is made by means of import quotas, tariffs, taxes or the outright nationalisation of oil refining and distribution by whatever methods are necessary to achieve that


object. That is what real planning means, and we will never get it in this country.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Percy Browne: In order to allow the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) time to make his speech within the remaining six minutes, I will re-arrange my speech and not range over the whole field of the industry, because that has been done sufficiently already. Indeed, I wish to make only a few specific points about the future.
On the one hand, we have increased productivity which we have been told by one hon. Member is in the region of 7·2 per cent. per man shift, and yet we are not necessarily producing the types of fuel that we want in all cases. At the same time, we have had a contraction in our labour force, and I hope that the Minister was right when he told us that we had now come to the bottom of the graph. At the same time, we are "lifting" above a figure which will leave us with an adequate reserve, and, because of this, we shall be down this year to the minimum that we should keep in reserve. We must reduce stocks. but not for too long at the present rate.
If we are to keep our indigenous fuel industry going, which I believe we must for strategic reasons if for no other, I should like to make a few suggestions as to how we should do this. Here, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I propose more or less to read a list because of time, but my list is not so long as my hon. Friend's. The first essential is that we should have efficiency, and that means that we must keep the price steady so that coal can compete with oil, as I am sure it can. Secondly, we must have efficient conversion to burn the fuel. The new Chairman of the Coal Board was perfectly right the other day when he said that the efficiency of coal conversion is improving all the time, and the more we can do this the less people will want to change to oil.
Thirdly, we must produce the fuel which people want. Apart from the South Wales fuel—anthracite, and so on—which is a difficult problem, we are up against the question of how we can produce larger coal without having to hand-

hew it. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) said about the mechanical cutter which he himself used in the pit. This is a problem which the industry must surely face. We want to produce large house coal which will sell and prevent people turning to other forms of fuel but we do not want the miners to go back to hewing coal by hand.
I would add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster said that we can improve screening at the pithead. When I last spoke in a fuel debate I was a coal merchant. I am no longer, owing to the exigencies of my job here. I do not need to declare an interest. But I said at that time, and I repeat it now, that there is a great deal of foreign matter getting into the coal sheds and I am wondering whether the National Coal Board can do anything about it.
I now wish to mention the railways. I was interested to see my namesake from America suggest the other day that the steam engine was more efficient than the diesel engine. If it is true, as this American gentleman tried to prove, that the efficiency of the steam engine is greater than that of the diesel engine and if at a time of crisis we are to depend on our coal industry, it would be sensible to run our engines on coal.
I said that I would sit down at seven minutes before five to nine. I see that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is about to rise and I will therefore say no more.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) for allowing me a few minutes in which to speak. I am glad that I caught his eye.
I have not the direct experience of almost all my hon. Friends who have spoken about the coal industry, but I think that to anyone who goes to the coal areas, where I have been in recent months, one contrast hits him in the face. It is the contrast between the mood of anxiety that prevails in the coal industry and the iron-clad complacency, or, perhaps, I should say the well-oiled complacency, of the Government. The people in the mining areas, certainly in Wales, would not accept the accent in which the Minister this afternoon spoke of the future of the industry.
When we hear hon. Members opposite, one after another, representing and speaking so enthusiastically on behalf of the oil interests and in favour of the Government's policy, it adds to the alarm which we feel about the situation. No one can say that what has happened in the past three years is a small affair. We have had a decline of 130.000 in the number of people working in the industry, a decline of 30 million tons in production and the closing of 136 pits. Those are extremely formidable figures.
I cannot help thinking what would have been the situation if the industry had been in private hands during this crisis in the coal industry between 1958 and 1960. If it had still been privately owned, I guarantee that the private coal owners would not have had to pay for the stocking programme, if, indeed, there had been any stocking programme at all if there had been private owners. Moreover, if the industry had still been in private hands, the private owners would not have had to pay for the previous import of the coal. Certainly, if during these critical years the industry had been in private ownership, there would not have been talk on the other side of the House that the private owners must meet the full blast of competition and that it would be wrong to have a tariff or protection.
If the industry had been in private hands, there would have been a great campaign run by the private owners, with posters and full-page advertisements in the newspapers and dozens of hon. Members opposite getting up on behalf of the coal industry. None of these facilities, however, has been provided, because it has been a nationalised industry. Indeed, the Government have been quite prepared to see this crisis continue. It has been a much bigger crisis than has affected any other industry in the land. We have been supposed to have been living through three years of affluence, during which period the coal industry has suffered a swifter and bigger decline than, probably, at any other time in its history. This is a serious situation.
The Minister said that things will be a bit better now, but his proof of this was not very convincing. When giving the manpower figures, he said that the industry was losing about 1,400 men a week at the beginning of 1960 and that the figure had come down to 350. To lose

350 a week is still a very heavy loss. Does the Minister deny that the number of miners now in the pits is lower than the total which the Coal Board said that it would require at this time, and that it is falling still lower? As one of my hon. Friends said, the situation is further underlined by the fact that half of those who are leaving the industry are under the age of 31. Do not the Government think that these are serious figures and that they have a real crisis to deal with?
When the Minister said that the circumstances have now altered and improved or that there is a change in the situation, he did not produce any solid facts to support that contention. Indeed, from what he said in the rest of his speech, he went on to add to the sense of alarm that might be felt, because he explained why he would not fix a figure for the future and why he would not accept The demand made by the National Union of Mineworkers that there should be a guarantee for the future.
The Minister gave three reasons why such a figure should not be given and why he should not take planning action in that sense. His first reason was that it would cause higher energy costs and put up the price to some extent. That might be so. Secondly, he said that it would involve control on consumption and, thirdly, he said that it would interfere with the commercial autonomy of the industry. Those, however, are things that the Government are quite prepared to do in the case of other industries. [An HON. MEMBER: "The railways."] In the case of the railways, to some degree.
In the case of agriculture, the Government have done that for years. They do not talk about the commercial autonomy of the industry. They do not talk about putting up the price—they do it. I do not say that protection is the best way to do it. One of the sinister aspects of the Minister's speech is that instead of talking about planning, he talked as if it was protection. It need not be protection at all.
Even more revealing of the Government's mind is the attempted but feeble reply by the Minister to what my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) had to say at the beginning


of the debate about the wider perspective of the fuel requirements, both of the nation and of the world, in the years ahead. As far as I can gather, although we are so critically dependent on coal, we have made less inquiry than the United States of America into what will be our fuel requirements for the future. We have not had the same kind of survey, and yet the Minister blithely pushes it aside as if this is not a major issue which has been argued by some of the greatest experts.
I urge every Member of the House who is interested in the subject, although I cannot quote or argue from it now, to read the statement and the case presented on this issue by Mr. Schumacher, of the Coal Board. As far as I know, it has never been answered in detail. Certainly, it has not been answered by the representatives of the oil interests in this debate. Indeed, many of the representatives of those interests have contradicted themselves during this debate. They have said that there is no need to worry, because oil imports do not interfere much with coal and are not really in competition with it. Then, a few sentences later, they add that the Government are keeping out the Russian oil which is causing a disastrous state of affairs.
The representatives of the oil interests have not presented any case in reply to the general demand made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark that the Government should put the whole of the fuel policy in new and much broader perspective. If they do not do so, if they do not change the situation and take action which could change the mood inside the coal industry and the coal communities, they are running terrible risks.
One of the miracles that has been achieved in this country since 1945 was to rebuild the coal industry from the desperate position in which it had been plunged. It was a miracle to do it once. We shall not be able to do it twice. If we allow this industry to decline again at the pace at which it has been declining during the past three years, or even at a pace which is one-half or one-quarter of it, we shall never be able to rebuild it again. Therefore, I hope that we shall have a much more forthright and general statement of the

Government's fuel policy than anything that we have had or remotely had from the Treasury Bench in this debate.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton: During the debate today hon. Members have been asked to declare their interest, so I had better declare mine immediately. I am a miner by profession, and a Member of Parliament by accident. For forty-one years I have been a member of the miners' union, and I am proud of it. I preface my speech in winding up this debate for the Opposition by stating that fact so that I shall not be asked to do so during the course of my remarks.
I should like to associate myself with the Minister in his tribute to Sir James Bowman. James Bowman and I have known one another for forty years. He comes from the North. He went to his job on the Coal Board with great knowledge of this industry. He did a remarkable job in the days when coal was difficult to get. He had to face the contraction and at the same time reorganise the industry, and I am sure that we on this side of the Committee wish him many happy years in his retirement.
We wish Alfred Robens well in the difficult job he has to face. He has declared that he will fight for coal and he can rest assured that we on this side of the Committee shall give him all the assistance we can. Although we do not share his super-optimism, I think he will do the best he can for this industry of which he is now in charge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) opened the debate with a fine speech, and he put the case very clearly for our side of the Committee. He most certainly made a splendid case in relation to the future of the whole of the energy industries of this country. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland), the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill), the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) have all made good contributions to the debate, and I shall support them in my arguments.
I was surprised at the statement made—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber—by the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). When he said that there were 4,000 people at Hobart House and that the cost was 3s. 6d. per ton he nearly took my breath away.
I decided to make some investigations into this statement. The facts are that at Hobart House there is a staff of 1,890 and it costs 2d. per ton. On the books at Hobart House are included people in research stations at Stoke Orchard and Iskworth and other staffs, and that brings the total figure on the books at Hobart House to 3,400. This means a total cost of 4d. per ton. The whole cost of Hobart House staff, outside staff on the books, all of the district staffs, and the pit staffs in administration down to the manager to the underground engineer is a total cost to the industry of 1s. 11d. a ton. I fail to see how the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde could make that statement or quote that figure.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Nabarro: Having something to eat.

Mr. Blyton: I listened to the Minister with great attention. I was surprised when, after they closed a hundred pits and brought the production of coal below the 1960 consumption, and after 153,000 men have been driven from our mines, he declared that, with the recession from the motor car and other industries, we are now getting a trickle of men back, and that our men in this industry can regard themselves now as having a great future. I will be quite frank: I fail to see it.
The Minister made great play with the Local Employment Act, saying that it was easing the employment position and redundancy. I do not know the position in other parts of the country, but I have a large mining constituency and unemployment in my constituency is over 5 per cent. and the Government have done nothing for them up to now, nor do I see them doing anything for them in the future. That Act is certainly not helping to meet the problems in my division in any way.
This debate today is another attempt by us to seek a co-ordinated energy

policy for this country and to secure a proper balance in the use of imported and indigenous fuels. There are signs today that there are employers who have awakened to the fact that planning production is a far more effective way of promoting the performance we need from industry if we are to keep our jobs and our standard of life. How then can the coal industry plan ahead if it does not know what is required of it in the future years?
The industry is being contracted to a position of trying to bring its production in line with expected demand. Last year the figure of consumption was about 203 million tons, which was higher than expected, while production was lower than we expected. Manpower was down to 583,000, which was 12,000 fewer than the Coal Board planned. During these years our young men have been leaving at a substantial rate, and many of these young men are tradesmen who are most essential now in the mining industry as it becomes highly mechanised.
It has to be remembered that in 1960 the average level of economic activity was much higher than in 1959 and much higher than in 1957 and 1958 which were years of stagnation. The year 1960 was exceptional in that the total energy required rose from 246 million tons in 1959 to 262 million tons in 1960. I ask the Minister, will this continue in 1961? It would not be wise to assume a similar increase in 1961 in either total energy demand or coal demand.
The general economic prospects are not too good. Industrial production has been stationary for quite a while now and many industries have deteriorated rapidly recently. Then there is the balance of payments problem. Any fall in economic activity in 1961 is bound to have a direct effect on the demands for coal. The Coal Board's plan for 1961 itself envisages coal disposals at 197 million tons, 34 pits to close and production reduced to 184 million tons. In 1960 inland coal consumption went up by 4 per cent. Oil consumption went up by 40 per cent., while fuel imports rose by nearly 50 per cent.
These figures must be viewed against the increase in total oil consumption from 37 million tons in 1957 to nearly 60 million tons in 1960, or an increase in fuel oil consumption from 11·8 million


tons of coal equivalent in 1957 to 25 million tons of coal equivalent in 1960, and this against a background of overproduction of oil. There are no signs that the competitive pressure on coal is lessening in any way. Today we depend for one-quarter of our energy requirements on imported oil, and into this picture must come the threat to coal from the importation of liquid methane now contemplated by some of the gas boards.
Any over-dependence of the British economy on imported oil is fraught with dangers not only because of our balance of payments problem but because of the political instability in the oil-producing areas. We have had the example of Suez. After Suez there was a revolution in Iraq, and before Suez there was Abadan. It must also not be forgotten that recently the oil-producing countries have joined together to form a new organisation with a view to restricting production, raising oil prices and obtaining a larger share of the profits.
How can anyone in the Committee say that the Sahara will be French in five years' time? Yet it is said that negotiations are taking place with a gas board in this country to import methane on a 20-year agreement. We know to our cost in this Committee of the rise of nationalism in the areas for which we are responsible in Africa. But it does not stop in those areas. It is happening over the whole of Africa. To talk of a 20-year contract in this context to the detriment of gas-coal is not at all in the national interest.
What about the long-term view? The Coal Board's revised plan for 1965 was based on the Government's estimate of 300 million tons of coal equivalent as our energy requirement. Its experts now put our energy requirement at 280 million tons of coal equivalent by 1965. Our union has studied this question and its studies have produced a similar result. On this basis, and with the recent trend in the growth of oil consumption, if there is no change in the Government's present policy, the share of coal by 1965 will be about 180 million tons. Let me make it clear that we do not want that position; we want the minimum figure of 200 million tons of coal in the British economy.
I noticed that in a note to the National Union of Mineworkers the Minister says that he considers our figures are too cautious and that the nation will need 200 million tons in 1965. If that is the Government's view, why do they not guarantee this figure and let us build the industry to meet it? If there is no change in Government policy and if we fail to get such a guarantee from the Government, we must not blind ourselves to present trends.
The uncertainty about the industry's future is not conducive, nor will it be conducive, to solving the manpower problem. Manpower comes mainly from the mining villages. The men have seen three years of contraction, which has been humanely done. They see that there is no guarantee by the Government of what is coal's rightful place in the economy, and they recognise that the Government say that they must be subjected to free competition in the fuel industries. That is what is creating in people's minds a lack of confidence in the industry and why they are seeing that their lads go to other industries. It is causing young men, who are so vital to the industry, to leave in their thousands and it is bringing the average age of the miner to a higher figure than I have known it for many years.
I am convinced that if the Government were to determine that 200 million tons of coal was our part in the economy, and the machinery of Government was used to that end, and if we had a co-ordinated policy for our fuel requirements, the coal industry could be planned to meet it. Otherwise, in our opinion, it is not possible to plan ahead at all.
I will say a word or two on prices, wages and the revenue deficit about which the Minister spoke today. The facts support our opinion that the financial difficulties of the Coal Board do not come from circumstances within the industry itself. The costs of production have been reduced: there has been a reduction of £50 million in the last three years; in 1959 there was a reduction in cost of 1s. 6d. per ton; there has been an increase in efficiency in the industry and over the last three years output per man shift has increased by 13 per cent. From the standpoint of the internal operations of the industry, there is no basis to suppose that financial difficulties should have existed for the Coal Board. However, they do exist, and they exist


solely as a consequence of political impositions forced upon the industry as a result of Government policy. The great probability is that the increase last October will help to reduce the deficit that was anticipated.
The increase in price last year was not introduced in order to meet wage increases or as benefits accruing to manpower employed at the pits. The increase, which, as the Minister said, was substantial, resulted from the determination of the Board to try to put an end to deficiency financing. The purpose of the price increases was in the main to try to get some way towards financial solvency for the Board. In fact, it was a measure taken by the Board economically within the industry to meet the cost of the political policies which are imposed upon the industry by the Government. Time and time again this side of the House has argued about the liabilities which have been placed on the industry in the last ten years, and the House is most certainly acquainted with them.
I should like to deal with the gas industry and coal. The gas industry has notable achievements to its credit since it was nationalised. The demand for gas has increased by 12 per cent., and there has been increased technical efficiency and productivity. Yet, like coal, the gas industry faces some crucial problems with regard to its future. There is a startling discrepancy between the rapid growth in demand for electricity and oil on the one hand and the slow growth in demand for gas on the other. The implication for the future of this discrepancy in growth is a high price of gas, for technically gas is a most satisfactory form of fuel for many industrial processes and domestic heating. It is clear, therefore, that the future of gas must be based on a lower costs of production, and I believe that if the price could be reduced gas would have a good future and in these days of competition, about which we have heard so much, it would help the industry to compete within the fuel industries.
So we are forced to the conclusion that any substantial reduction in the costs of producing gas is unlikely to be obtained by the existing technical process of carbonisation. So the main alternatives we face are the complete

gasification of low grade coal or the large importation of natural gas from abroad, either in liquid form or by pipeline. In my opinion, in the interests of coal and the interests of the nation we should be linked up with the complete gasification of coal rather than with imported gas projects. If we adopt imported gas projects, it will mean an increased burden on our balance of payments, and there will be little to choose between importing natural gas and increasing our oil imports. But the gasification of coal will mean a capital expenditure which will be in Britain, while the other way much of it will be abroad. The use of low-grade coals would, however, mean the utilisation of our own fuel, and it would secure our market and, indeed, possibly bring about an expanding one.
However, this subject—I am not technically qualified to deal with the question of comparative costs—is dealt with in the Wilson Report and in two recent articles in the Economist. I have talked to some experts in this field, and they seem to draw the conclusion that there is not a great deal to choose on the ground of costs; that is, between the possible price of imported natural gas and the possible price from low-grade coal.
It is important to bear in mind that if we are to reap the full economic and technical benefits of these plants, they must be on a very large scale. I suggest that the Lurgi plants should be on the scale of taking one million tons of coal per annum, and be adjacent to collieries in order to cut transport costs. I believe that costs could be further cut by developing the Lurgi process and using the slagging thick bed pressure process.
I know that some people in the gas industry are sick of coal, and that the possibility of buying light petroleum hydro-carbons such as natural gas and methane from sources abroad is a great attraction. But this will mean getting the country's gas from imports.
I will give one example. We are informed that proposals are to be submitted to the Minister by the North Thames Gas Board for the import of natural gas from the Sahara. I understand the proposal is that it should import about 38 milliard cubic feet a year.


An import of this size would replace 4 million tons of gas coal a year, and the greater part of this loss would fall upon the Durham coalfield, which is already contracting. Four million tons of coal represents the annual output of 16,000 Durham miners.
At the present time, there is a surplus of gas coal, and if this proposal were accepted it would mean the contraction of large pits, still with years and years of reserves of coal in them, and upon which millions of pounds have been spent in modernisation.
It would also hit our collier trade, and shipping is in a bad enough way now without aggravating it any further. Coastwise shipping has been diminishing for quite a while, and ships will not be built if no encouragement is given to their employment.
I ask the Minister how much the Gas Council has spent on research into Lurgi plants and how much on the gasification of oil. The Council's plans up to 1965 show that there is a tendency to desert the coal industry, because if we look at the plans, the proportion of gas from coal will be reduced from the present 65 per cent. available to 55 per cent. by 1966, and it could possibly be much less if the importation of methane were allowed on a large scale.
It is because of the Government's concept of lively competition between the nationalised industries that we say to them that to sanction imported methane on the scale contemplated by the gas industry will make the position of the coal industry even worse than we visualise it today.
I promised to sit down at 9.30 p.m., but I should like to say a word or two about fuel oil. The inland consumption of oil in the last four years has been to the detriment of the coal industry, and I do not want to go over the ground covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark.
What I fail to understand in the refining of oil is why fuel oil is regarded as a residual product. One finds that when one looks at the refineries. One cannot consider fuel oil as a residual product when it accounts for over 40 per cent. of the total petroleum products of the oil refinery whereas motor spirit

accounts for only 25 per cent. of the total.
We find also that over the three years 1957–60 fuel oil consumption rose by 150 per cent. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark in asking for the resurrection of the tax which the Tories put on in 1935, which we took off in 1947 during the coal shortage, and which would have been put on long before now had the coal owners been sitting on that side of the Committee.

Mr. Nabarro: Certainly not.

Mr. Blyton: My hon. Friends have dealt with the other aspects of our fuel problems, but I would remind the House that fuel and power are of vital concern to us. We take the view that fuel and power policy cannot be left solely to the free play of the market. There must be some conscious Government policy for this industry for the following reasons. First, because of the basic importance of fuel and power to our economy. Secondly, because the fuel industries must plan many years ahead. Thirdly, because we have our own indigenous fuel.
Consumer choice is not by itself a coherent fuel and power policy for this country. None of the policies which we have put forward interfere with consumer choice in the sense of trying to direct people about the type of fuel they should use. We should seek to influence their choice by the use of fiscal measures which no one can deny is an accepted theme of Government economic activity.
At what point will equilibrium be achieved in this industry? To what size is the industry to be cut? Is the cut to be determined by economic jungle law? If this process is not changed we will not get the men into the industry and there will be disastrous results in the years ahead.
Having taken an interest in fuel and power matters for many years, I am satisfied that ever since Lord Mills was Minister of Fuel and Power oil interests have been regarded as paramount to the detriment of coal. I regard Lord Mills as the greatest disaster suffered by the coal industry.

Mr. Nabarro: Lord Mills was a jolly good chap.

Mr. Blyton: The men who saw the poster, "Looking for work with a future? Coal mining gives you a good job" feel that they have been let down. As pits closed and stocks started to pile up in the colliery yards they advised their sons to seek work elsewhere.

Mr. Nabarro: Lord Mills published it.

Mr. Blyton: It is no use the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) or the Minister giving us lectures about running down this industry, when the Government, by their policies, have created a lack of confidence in the industry over the last four years.
In conclusion, I put these questions to the Government. Do the Government face without apprehension the importation of 90 million tons of coal equivalent in 1965 and the dependence of our national economy upon imported fuels for one-third of its energy requirements? Do they not have any qualms at all about what will be the effects of such massive oil imports on the balance of payments problem? Do they not consider it highly dangerous to make us too dependent on an imported fuel in a world so uncertain as it is today? The Government cannot expect us to remain passive onlookers at the strangulation of our native industry and the destruction of the social and cultural life of our mining communities by the processes of economic anarchy and cut-throat competition.

Mr. Nabarro: Nonsense.

Mr. Blyton: We have gone through this before. We suffered much. Our memories are still bitter. We see the trends and we see Government policy working relentlessly to strangle this great industry, upon which Britain's prosperity has been built. We ask all our colleagues tonight to register their protest in the Division Lobbies against the Government's policy.

9.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): rose—

Mr. Richard Marsh: On a point of order. As there are so few Government supporters now present—only about twenty—would it be possible for one of the staff to see if the

annunciators in the bars are still working?

The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Nabarro: I am here, anyway.

Mr. George: I can fully understand hon. Members opposite having anxieties about the mining industry and having had them for several years. However, it is unworthy of them, even with those anxieties, continuously to attribute to this side of the Committee a desire to continue and expand those anxieties into the future, especially when there has been in the past three years a policy, with Government assistance, of sheltering redundancy unequalled in this or any other country. Money was advanced by the Government in order to allow the National Coal Board to accumulate stocks—not stocks for any ordinary industrial purpose, but stocks for one single purpose, namely, to save men from pain. The stocks were accumulated and the rundown of the industry was managed in a controlled fashion. We have now reached a period of stability, and no one has been seriously hurt.
Looking at that process over the past three years as honest men and not as biassed men, can we not feel that the past is a guide to the future? If the industry falls again upon bad times, the Government who then came to its rescue along with the National Coal Board will do it again in the future.
All I ask hon. Gentlemen to do is to look at the circumstances of today and ask whether the anxieties which have been expressed have any foundation in reality. We have heard ominous phrases used, for instance, by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), about alarm and growing concern in the coal fields. I could have understood that three or even two years ago, but I do not believe it today.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: The Parliamentary Secretary's statement may have left hon. Members with the impression that the Government have advanced money to the National Coal Board for the purpose of providing a cushion in regard to stocking. Do I understand that the National Coal Board will have to repay the capital and interest on the money advanced?

Mr. George: Advances normally have to be repaid.
Let us look at the position rationally, forgetting about the T.U.C. leaflet and the T.U.C. policy. Let us consider the mining industry as it stands today. Are there grounds for all the anxieties which have been expressed today? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] When there is still anxiety about recruitment, does it do that campaign any good to repeat that there is alarm and fear in the coal fields?
We should not carry into the 1960s the spirit of the late 1950s. We need a buoyancy. By their speeches today hon. Members opposite have shown that time and events have passed them by. They have not managed to capture the spirit of their late colleague and present Chairman of the National Coal Board, who is facing the 1960s with optimism and buoyancy, and not without reason in view of what has happened in the last year. Consumption has risen sharply, and no matter how much hon. Members opposite may wish to deny it, consumption was up in 1960 and output per man shift has steadily increased and manpower losses have been checked.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that my right hon. Friend's statement showed that we were losing men at the rate of 350 per week, but my right hon. Friend continued his statement to say that in the first four weeks of this year the position had stabilised itself. We have thus moved from losing 1,400 men a week to stability.

Mr. Swain: Will the hon. Member agree—

Major W. Hicks Beach: Speak up.

Mr. Swain: The hon. and gallant Member can get a deaf aid from the National Health Service, although it will cost him two bob.

Mr. Nabarro: I cannot hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Swain: It is the Minister's time you are foolishly wasting.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. The hon. Member said that you are foolish, Sir Gordon.

The Chairman: I did not think that the hon. Member intended anything of the sort.

Mr. Swain: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that every time a young man between the ages of 18 and 25 leaves the industry, the average age of the men in it increases? Does he think that it is an industry which can be efficiently operated with an ever-increasing age level?

Mr. George: I realise the importance of retaining as low an age level as possible, but the present age level is not as bad as has been said today. In 1957 the average age in the industry was 40·5, and in 1960 it was 41·5, so the position has not seriously worsened, in spite of the fact that 120,000 men have left the industry.
I was trying to point out that there were sound reasons for optimism. I said that consumption had risen, that output per man had increased and that manpower losses had been checked. Contraction has ended and stocks are being lifted, and a profit is being earned. Those are grounds for genuine optimism, so why do hon. Members opposite carry the misery of the 1950s into the 1960s? Hon. Members have been at pains to tell us how much has been suffered since 1957, but I say that we should leave the past behind. We should look at the facts today and go forward with confidence.
Having said that, I would not presume to say that the troubles of this industry are by any means finally ended. Neither did my right hon. Friend. Far from it. There are immense difficulties ahead and fierce challenges to be faced, but I would say again that progress has been made and there are real grounds for confidence in the future.
The charge has been made that in the rundown of this industry the Government have been apathetic, unaware and unconcerned, and it has been said that our policy has been to throw the men on to the scrap heap in 1957 and to try to bring them back again in 1960. This matter was dealt with at length by my right hon. Friend. The care taken by the National Coal Board, with the approval of the Government and of the House of Commons, to shelter the miner from redundancy and to maintain capacity


completely demolishes the charge that the decline in the industry was unplanned. It may be that humanity in the industry in the past has been lacking, but in this case it has reached a new peak, and I would say that the country was glad that this action was taken. The aim has been reached and few have been hurt, and it is ungracious of hon. Members opposite to imply that the rundown was carried out by a heartless, apathetic and unconcerned Government.
There are several matters on which I should like to expand. My right hon. Friend has dealt with the main points, and I should like to expand on a few of the other matters that have been raised as there is time for nothing else. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) expressed anxiety about the gas industry. He expressed fear that methane might be allowed to be imported into this country in large quantities. This matter has been raised in the House from time to time and my right hon. Friend has told the House that he has been awaiting firm proposals from the Gas Council. That is still the position. We know that these firm proposals will come within a reasonably short time, but at the moment he has nothing before him to consider. However, he has given the House an assurance that when he does have a scheme he will consider all aspects of the importation of methane, that he will consult with the National Coal Board, and that the decision, when it is taken, will, in his view, be the best in the national interest. Nobody's argument will be neglected when that decision is taken. Whether or not methane will be imported has yet to be decided, but he emphasised that in his view the future lay with gasification rather than methane.
The Gas Council is carrying out an investigation into the cost of Lurgi gas generation. The first Lurgi plant has come into commission at Westfield in Scotland, and so far is proceeding as expected. A second plant is being erected at Coleshill in the Midlands, and with the two in operation we shall gain experience of Lurgi gas manufacture. If the results of examination and experience show the Gas Council that the cheapest product will come from expanding Lurgi gas generation it will be expanded, but at this stage experiments are being con-

ducted which will be watched with great care and all lessons will be learned.
The fact that the Gas Council has gone in for these expansive Lurgi plants is an earnest of its desire not to desert the coal industry, as has been suggested, but we have to live with facts. The gas industry is static. It has been unable to expand its sales in the last three or four years because the price of gas was chasing away the domestic consumer. If it is to retain the domestic consumer, who is the backbone of the gas industry, it has to find ways and means of stabilising the price. It has got gas from coke ovens. That has been increased, and, in doing this, coal has been consumed in the coke ovens. It has got methane from the mines, and that assists in promoting safety in the mines.
It has other forms of refinery gas and oil to help it in the task of keeping the industry healthy and in good heart, in the hope that these new allies will, in the future, allow it to expand and remain a good customer of coal. That is the hope of the gas industry. To that end, it is doing research but it must face realities and live if it is to be a good customer for coal. Its chief aim in life is not to desert coal by using oil. The industry is concerned to retain the connection with coal which it has had for many years, and I am glad to say that relations between the Gas Council and the National Coal Board have never been so good as they are today.
A great deal has been said about fuel oil imports, the balance of payments problem and the danger to this country and to the coal mining industry. This matter was raised by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) in his opening speech, by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), and by other hon. Members.

Mr. Nabarro: I did not agree.

Mr. George: I said that the matter had been raised. The short answer to the charge that we are importing large quantities of fuel oil is that we are net exporters. Home production has exceeded inland deliveries over the years, and we expect this trend to continue in 1961. We must look at the whole field of fuel consumption and see whether there are areas where fuel is


essential for the life of the country. For instance, more and more people are travelling by car, road transport is expanding, aviation is expanding, agriculture is using fuel, and so forth. These are uses in the intimate life of the nation which must be supplied.
Oil is needed by the consumer to supply his needs, and it is better that the country should import in the form of crude oil to be refined at home, and that the fuel oil left should be used to supply essential needs at home. If that fuel oil is left, it is better for it to be used here than for it to be exported or put to waste. A use should be found for it and, so long as we can confine our use of oil in this country to the product of our own refineries, I contend that any problem of security in our supplies is not a big one.
We are importing oil from many sources. Some time ago, we were confined within a narrow range of suppliers, but we have diversified our sources of supplies in recent years. New discoveries have been made in different parts of the world, and the diversification of supply has brought greater security. We have tankers in excess of need all over the world to bring in extra supplies if required. There is a vast amount of shut-down production in the world today. Moreover, we have not neglected our stocks at home to see us over a temporary emergency. Therefore, the security of our supplies is not in jeopardy in the way suggested in the debate.
If oil is an opponent of coal, it is by virtue of the fact that it is essential to the life of the nation. We are not importing fuel oil to use it in opposition to coal. Everything that is used is the product of our own refineries, and, as I said, we are a net exporter.
We have been told over and over again that oil imports to this country must be a burden on the balance of payments. In 1959, we imported mainly crude oil to the value of £470 million. These imports helped to sustain exports of at least £100 million outwards from our refineries, reducing that figure to £370 million. Moreover, much of the import bill is in sterling, from British concerns abroad and brought here in British ships. The British oil companies not only trade

with this country but they sell four times as much oil abroad as we consume here. Also, they have brought to this country a new industry, the export of petroleum equipment. Half the orders in British shipyards since the war have been for tankers. I can give the Committee an assurance that our overseas oil is not a heavy cost to this country and not a heavy charge on the balance of payments.

Mr. Ginsburg: rose—

Mr. George: I am sorry. I cannot give way.
We have heard it suggested that opencast cuts should be made, but I want the Committee to realise what opencast cutting has meant to the Coal Board. This was the most profitable line of activity, and the Board made a profit in 1957 from opencast operations of £9 million. Last year, the figure had fallen to £4 million—a definite subsidy to aid redundancy of £5 million per year—and when the figures for 1960 are ready, I think we shall find a still greater sum being paid by the Coal Board for that rundown of the industry which was done in order to save the men concerned a great deal of pain. The Coal Board is committed to reduce opencast operation further, but has reduced it as far as it can without incurring tremendous expense in compensation which it considers beyond it at this time. Its programme will be carried out and opencast will be run down gradually.
One amazing complaint was made by the hon. Member for Southwark which showed how very far he is from being up to date on the question of the oil used in this country. He said that we should stop using it at power stations because there was no cost advantage by using oil. The hon. Gentleman must have been by-passed by events for him to make that statement today. The position is that the relative cost of the use of coal and oil in steam-driven power stations depends upon the location of the particular stations in relation to the supplies of the two fuels. Coal can compete with oil at stations sited near the coal fields. On the Thames Estuary and the South Coast, the costs of transporting coal are high, but oil is cheaply available from local refineries. In these locations it is about 30 per cent. more expensive to generate from coal than from oil, and at a large modern station such as Marchwood, it would cost about


£2 a year more to operate on coal rather than on oil at the present time. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman who made the statement that there was no cost advantage in using oil. He pleads that the dual-fired stations should be immediately changed over. We have already in past debates shown that the programme has been cut by 40 per cent. and that is a direct aid to the coal industry. We have had a remarkable increase in power consumption in the last year, and this has related to the question of the consumption of oil.
The load increase has almost doubled its rate in past years to about 13 per cent. The trend is about 6·9 per cent. per annum. That meant that every available piece of plant had to be ready for use at peak periods, and the Central Electricity Generating Board produced a remarkable performance in that 93 per cent. of its equipment was ready to go into use or in use at the end of the year. That had never been done before in the industry, and this extra demand resulted in the extra demand for coal rising above what was expected at the beginning of 1960 so that 5·5 million tons of additional coal was used by the Central Electricity Generating Board in 1960. It also meant that we were running the high-merit stations for longer hours, and the consumption of oil was high.
I am sure that both sides will be happy that if coal advances rapidly, oil consumption should also advance in step. 'The point is that all the plant is needed to meet peak demand. Therefore, the oil stations have had to run for longer periods than was expected at the beginning of 1960.
This will apply also to the future, I must warn the Committee. It was expected that the amount of oil used in dual-fired power stations would fall to 3 million tons in 1965, but that is unlikely to take place now. The plants now in use must be maintained, to meet the additional load, and if it holds as it is, the Generating Board will be hard pressed to keep hold of the situation next winter and in succeeding winters. All plant in commission, aided year by year with additional plant, will be required to hold this increased load if it keeps rising at anything like the 1960 figures. That means that more oil than was expected will be used in 1965.
Only a few minutes are still available to me and I must leave many points unanswered, but I will endeavour to write to hon. Members about them. I wish to make one further point about the industry. When this profitless exercise of backtracking is over, the main problem of the industry will still remain. That problem is productivity and more productivity. No grants or subsidies, neither targets nor taxes, will supply the answer. Eager and capable management and productivity consciousness can enable the new industry, created at great cost to serve its true purpose, to be an asset and not a liability, to regard its employees generously, to serve its customers well and be in the forefront of technical progress, as it should be.
Let me look to the future for the answer to the problem of the industry as I see it. This nation must export or cease to prosper. Therefore, fuel and power supplies must be ample and reasonably priced. Ten substantial rises in fourteen years are disquieting. We are in danger of losing our oldest and chief asset over our European competitors—cheap fuel. We have reached a position where the Government are reluctant to extend protection to the coal industry in case this creates a high energy cost nation. The Board cannot raise its prices further because it has already reached the point of no return. Nor can it afford to underpay its labour in a full employment economy even if it wished to do so.
The only answer is a rapid and continuing increase in productivity. This must be obtained by concentration upon high-speed faces underground and on the best collieries and moving the faces forward rapidly, making the best use of the machinery that we have purchased and the roads that we have made. Progress has been made to that end.
The output per yard of face in 1957 was 319 tons. It rose in 1959 to 345 Ions. That is the average. Output, per yard of face in some new collieries has reached 415 tons. These figures are through concentration. The European Coal and Steel Community countries have carried through mechanisation of concentration. The underground output per man shift since 1957 in the Community as a whole increased by 20 per cent. In the Ruhr it


increased by 32 per cent. In this country in increased by 12 per cent.

Mr. Swain: The figure is 42 per cent. since 1947.

Mr. George: No—per cent. Output in the Ruhr is 2·1tons per shift against 1·8here. They have crossed the line. They are doing better than us and we must see what we can do to improve the situation.
There is a way in which we can do this. This is concentration. In 1947 an old colliery through reconstruction and concentration, produced half a million tons with an o.m.s. of cwt. This colliery, with fewer men, is now producing 1 million tons with an o.m.s. of 66 cwt.

Mr. Swain: Is that only 12 per cent.?

Mr. George: That is for one colliery.
The example to be followed is quite clear. We have created expensive collieries costing millions of pounds. To work them on one shift would be death. To work them on two shifts would enable them to pay their way. If they are worked on three shifts they will be highly profitable. The industry must have a faster advance if it is to live prosperously and to pay its people well. It must press forward on these lines, working on the best pits, concentrating on the best faces and having faster advance.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 223, Noes, 299.

Division No. 58.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Evans, Albert
Lawson, George


Ainsley, William
Fernyhough, E.
Ledger, Ron


Albu, Austen
Finch, Harold
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fitch, Alan
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fletcher, Eric
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Awbery, Stan
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Forman, J. C.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Baird, John
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lipton, Marcus


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Loughlin, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McCann, John


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
MacColl, James


Benson, Sir George
Greenwood, Anthony
McInnes, James


Blackburn, F.
Grey, Charles
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Blyton, William
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mackie, John


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
McLeavy, Frank


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Gunter, Ray
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Bowles, Frank
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Boyden, James
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hannan, William
Manuel, A. C.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mapp, Charles


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hayman, F. H.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Marsh, Richard


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mason, Roy


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mayhew, Christopher


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hilton, A. V.
Mellish, R. J.


Callaghan, James
Holman, Percy
Mendelson, J. J.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Houghton, Douglas
Millan, Bruce


Chetwynd, George
Howell, Charles A.
Milne, Edward J.


Cliffe, Michael
Hoy, James H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Collick, Percy
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Monslow, Walter


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moody, A. S.


Cronin, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, John


Crosland, Anthony
Hunter, A. E.
Moyle, Arthur


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Mulley, Frederick


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Neal, Harold


Darling, George
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Noel-Beker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Oram, A. E.


Deer, George
Jeger, George
Oswald, Thomas


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Will


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Padley, W. E.


Diamond, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pavitt, Laurence


Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kenyon, Clifford
Peart, Frederick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pentland, Norman


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
King, Dr. Horace
Plummer, Sir Leslie




Popplewell, Ernest
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Prentice, R. E.
Snow, Julian
Warbey, William


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sorensen, R. W.
Watkins, Tudor


Probert, Arthur
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Weitzman, David


Proctor, W. T.
Spriggs, Leslie
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Steele, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Randall, Harry
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Rankin, John
Stones, William
Whitlock, William


Redhead, E. C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wigg, George


Reid, William
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Reynolds, G. W.
Swain, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Swingler, Stephen
Willey, Frederick


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Sylvester, George
William, LI. (Abertillery)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Symonds, J. B.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Ross, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Woof, Robert


Skeffington, Arthur
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Yates, victor (Ladywood)


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Thornton, Ernest
Zilliacus, K.


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Small, William
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Mr. John Taylor and




Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Aitken, W. T.
Critchley, Julian
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hendry, Forbes


Aliason, James
Crowder, F. P.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Arbuthnot, John
Cunningham, Knox
Hiley, Joseph


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Curran, Charles
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Atkins, Humphrey
Currie, G. B. H.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Barber, Anthony
Dance, James
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Barlow, Sir John
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Barter, John
d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hocking, Philip N.


Batsford, Brian
Deedes, W. F.
Holland, Philip


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
de Ferranti, Basil
Hollingworth, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Holt, Arthur


Bell, Ronald
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Doughty, Charles
Hopkins, Alan


Berkeley, Humphry
Drayson, G. B.
Hornsby, R. P.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
du Cann, Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Bidgood, John C.
Duthie, Sir William
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Biggs-Davison, John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Eden, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bishop, F. P.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hughes-Young, Michael


Black, Sir Cyril
Emery, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bossom, Clive
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Errington, Sir Eric
Jackson, John


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
James, David


Box, Donald
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Farr, John
Jennings, J. C.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fell, Anthony
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Braine, Bernard
Finlay, Graeme
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Brewis, John
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Freeth, Denzil
Joseph, Sir Keith


Brooman-White, R.
Gammans, Lady
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gardner, Edward
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Bryan, Paul
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bullard, Denys
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, Marcus


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Goodhew, Victor
Kirk, Peter


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Gough, Frederick
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Gower, Raymond
Langford-Holt, J.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Leather, E. H. C.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Green, Alan
Leavey, J. A.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimond, J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Channon, H. P. G.
Grimston, Sir Robert
Lilley, F. J. P.


Chataway, Christopher
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lindsay, Martin


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gurden, Harold
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Cleaver, Leonard
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Longbottom, Charles


Cole, Norman
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Longden, Gilbert


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Loveys, Walter H.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Cordle, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Costain, A. P.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McAdden, Stephen


Coulson, J. M.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
MacArthur, Ian


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
McLaren, Martin




Maclay, Rt. Hon. John







McMaster, Stanley R.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Pott, Percivall
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Maddan, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Teeling, William


Maginnis, John E.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Temple, John M.


Maitland, Sir John
Prior, J. M. L.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Marlowe, Anthony
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Marten, Neil
Ramsden, James
Thorpe, Jeremy


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Rawlinson, Peter
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Renton, David
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mills, Stratton
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridsdale, Julian
Vane, W. M. F.


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rippon, Geoffrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Morgan, William
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Morrison, John
Robson Brown, Sir William
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Roots, William
Wade, Donald


Nabarro, Gerald
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Neave, Airey
Russell, Ronald
Wall, Patrick


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Ward, Dame Irene


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Noble, Michael
Seymour, Leslie
Watts, James


Nugent, Sir Richard
Sharples, Richard
Webster, David


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Shaw, M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Shepherd, William
Whitelaw, William


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Smithers, Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Speir, Rupert
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Partridge, E.
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Woodhouse, C. M.


Peel, John
Stodart, J. A.
Woodnutt, Mark


Percival, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Woollam, John


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Studholme, Sir Henry
Worsley, Marcus


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Gibson-West and


Pitman, I. J.

Mr. Chichester-Clark.

Original Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow:

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ISSUE OF £42,877,600 OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED FUND FOR THE SERVICE OF THE YEAR ENDING 31ST MARCH, 1961.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: rose—

The Chairman: I must warn the hon. Member that there are technical difficulties about debating this. Supply has already been voted by the House and the Committee cannot override or amend the decision of the House. The sole purpose of this Clause is to authorise the Lords of the Treasury to apply money voted in the way Parliament orders.

Mr. Robinson: I am happy to assure you, Sir Gordon, that it is not our intention to ask the Committee to amend the Clause or the Supply which has already been made, but there are certain problems about this Bill, which is not, of course, the normal type of Consolidated Fund Bill we are used to discussing at some length. I gather that it refers entirely to the Pilkington award to the doctors. We had a rather brief discussion on the Supplementary Estimate which gave rise to this Bill. In that discussion a number of questions were raised by right hon. and hon. Friends of mine. To some of those questions there were answers given. I am not sure that they were altogether satisfactory. Indeed, to some of the questions no answers were given at all.

The Chairman: The questions the hon. Member is asking do not arise on this Clause.

Mr. Robinson: With great respect, Sir Gordon, this Clause authorises the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund the sum of £42,877,600. As I understand it, that sum represents the annual figure of, in round figures, about £11½million plus the sum of about £31 million which represents arrears of pay

arising out of the back-dating of the Pilkington award. Surely, if it is to be possible for us to ask questions and to receive answers in connection with this award, it would seem that this Clause is the Clause on which those questions should be raised. Clause 2 is only giving the Treasury power to borrow.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but it is clearly laid down that expenditure cannot be discussed on this Clause.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Is it not in order to ask questions about this? We are being asked to authorise this expenditure. Surely we may ask questions about where it is going, the exact direction?

The Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot ask where it is going.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Would you kindly indicate, Sir Gordon, what we are supposed to be doing, what we are being asked to do, and why?

The Chairman: The purpose of the Bill is to give authority to the Lords of the Treasury to make payments which the House has already approved. This grant of £42,877,600 was approved in Committee of Supply on 5th December and the Resolution was agreed to by the House on 20th December. Therefore, the Clause authorising this sum cannot be amended and
according to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate.
This is in Erskine May, page 748.

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. Would there be any consequence at all from the defeat of the Bill? If there is no difference whether the Bill is passed or defeated, there is no point in discussing it.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The first words of the Clause say that "The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund." Would I be in order if I argued, or if the Opposition Front


Bench argued, that this money should come not from the Consolidated Fund but from another source?

The Chairman: According to Erskine May
On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed; and debate on the amount of the sum to be issued, or an amendment to reduce it or to alter the date or time for which the issue is to be made, is out of order; on those clauses, the object of which is to ensure the application of the grants made by Parliament be the objects defined by the resolutions of the Committee of Supply, debate and amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriation…

Mr. Mellish: Surely it would be perfectly in order, in view of the Ruling, to argue that this money should not come from this Fund but from other sources, and to argue how the money could best be found other than from the Consolidated Fund.

The Chairman: The hon. Member can only argue what is in the Clause.

Mr. Mellish: It is in the Clause. That is the point.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The discussion of the destination of the Fund would be out of order, but you did not say, Sir Gordon, that discussion of the source would be out of order.

The Chairman: The money has already been agreed to.

Mr. Gordon Walker: When you ruled what would be in order, Sir Gordon, you definitely said that discussion of the destination of the money would be out of order, but you refrained from saying that discussion of the source would be in order.

The Chairman: I never explain what is in order but simply what is out of order. The source is provided by Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, which has been approved by the House, and this Committee cannot alter that.

Mr. Robinson: Further to that point of order. You said two things in accordance with the Rulings, Sir Gordon, and I should like a further explanation. First, you said that something was according to present practice. This rather suggests that this is not a rule of the Medes

and Persians. Can you tell the Committee how long this has been the present practice and whether we need to be bound by this practice indefinitely? On page 747 of Erskine May, there is a sentence which I do not think you read out in the course of describing what we could or could not discuss on the Clause. Erskine May says:
…debate and amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriation.…
I was hoping to direct my remarks towards the principle of appropriation. It seems to me that if we cannot in any way—

The Chairman: I might answer one point first. As regards the practice, these rules have been established by long practice. They have been honoured by the House at least since the beginning of the century in some cases, and in many cases earlier than that. As to the second point, this is not an Appropriation Bill. The hon. Member has been misled.

Mr. Robinson: With great respect, if I may complete this point. I am reading a passage in Erskine May which refers to Consolidated Fund Bill procedure in Committee which is precisely relevant to the debate we are endeavouring to have at the moment.

The Chairman: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Member again, but that applies to the Appropriation Bill which we have later on. It does not apply to this particular Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr, Hector Hughes: I understood you to say, Sir Gordon, that we can discuss the principle of the Bill. Surely we shall be discussing the principle of the Bill if we discuss the origin.

The Chairman: We are debating the Clause now.

Mr. William Ross: As I understand it, we have assented to the words in the preamble and "cheerfully granted" that the sum of £42,877,600.

The Chairman: We are not dealing with the preamble at the moment. We are dealing with Clause 1.

Mr. Ross: This was a preamble to my point of order. We have done that for a specific purpose, to which I understand we have also agreed. Would I be right


in arguing and insisting on Clause 1 that the money be spent for that purpose and that purpose only?

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member would repeat his last remark.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, my last remark did not carry and I am afraid you heard me only when I was out of order. Would I be right in insisting that the money be used and used only for the purpose for which it was granted by Parliament? Will I be in order then?

The Chairman: The purpose of this Clause is to ensure that the money will be used for the purpose authorised by Parliament.

Mr. Willis: May I continue the debate on the Clause, Sir Gordon? I was referring specifically to the Clause and to none of the matters which you have ruled to be out of order. I suggest that this Clause is badly worded. The Clause says, "The Treasury may issue". You have just told us that we have approved the expenditure of money for specific purposes. It seems to me to be quite wrong that the House of Commons should give a permissive power to the Treasury. I suggest that the word "may" is quite wrong and that the word should be "shall". After all, the House of Commons has made a decision and it would be quite wrong for it now to give power' to the Treasury not to carry out what the House of Commons has said must be done.

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid the hon. Member has proposed an Amendment to the Bill and we cannot have an Amendment.

Mr. K. Robinson: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is arguing that this is a badly drafted Clause. I have not heard him suggest that it should be actually amended. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury could possibly get us out of the difficulty if at this stage of the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part" he made a statement. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has very courteously come to the House obviously in order to answer questions on the Bill, and I am sure he is disappointed that he is unable to answer some questions put

hitherto. Perhaps, he can explain why the word "may" is in this Clause and whether it indicates that there are other methods the Treasury can use in order to obtain this money. If he could give us a further explanation of the purpose of the Clause, perhaps we could come back to other matters on subsequent Clauses or at later stages of the Bill.

The Chairman: I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will not do that, because other matters would be out of order.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Before the Financial Secretary replies to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—if he intends to reply—there is a further point to be raised. My hon. Friend has made the point—

Mr. Willis: I have not finished yet.

Mr. Hughes: —that the Clause is badly worded because it is permissive, the word used being "may" instead of "shall." That is perfectly clear. My hon. Friend's point is that the Clause is badly worded—

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I am sorry, but I do not quite understand exactly where we are in our proceedings. I sat down because a point of order was raised. I do not know whether the points of order are continuing or what is happening.

The Chairman: I indicated to the hon. Member that his proposed Amendment would not be in order.

Mr. Willis: I was not proposing an Amendment, Sir Gordon. I was discussing the Clause and suggesting that the language was not suitable and did not give effect to the will of Parliament as expressed by the Ways and Means Resolution which has been passed. In view of that, the Government ought seriously to reconsider the Bill and its withdrawal. They may wish to withdraw it after I have finished, because I wish to draw attention to another set of words in the Clause:
supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year…
What does "the service of the year" mean? Should it not be "for the service for the year"? There seems to be some


slipshod draftsmanship in the Clause. Should it not read "for the service for the year"? Otherwise, I suggest—

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is now trying to move an Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I quote a Ruling. It was given on 26th March, 1913. The Chair was asked whether, because it was the rule that amendment of the Clause was impossible, it was impossible to discuss questions which might have been the subject-matter of an Amendment. The Chairman replied:
The hon. Member has quite correctly apprehended the Rule."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1913; Vol. 50, c. 1679.]

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Surely it is not an Amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is suggesting. He is raising a point that goes to the very root of the Clause, and that is surely something which one is entitled to discuss on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." He is not trying to move or dreaming of moving an Amendment. He knew that that would be out of order. He is going for something which is really radical to the Clause. He has raised two points which are radical to the Clause. He has referred to the words "may" and "shall." Surely that is a matter that goes to the principle of the Clause, and surely it must be in order to raise that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.30 p.m.

The Chairman: No. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was proposing an Amendment to the Clause.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. Surely, with all respect, your Ruling cannot be correct. You have already ruled that it is in order to discuss what is in the Clause but not to discuss what is outside. My hon. Friend sought to criticise the wording of the Clause. He did not—

The Chairman: The hon. Member was proposing an Amendment to the Clause.

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. I wonder on whose authority it is stated that we have no

right to discuss those matters. Is it Erskine May? Who is Erskine May? [Interruption.] Is it not the case, Sir Gordon, that we had a decision taken or a vote taken on a Question only the other day, and that vote was treated with extreme contempt? In those circumstances, can we not take it that there is no established precedent of this House that cannot be challenged?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is quite wrong. There is the authority of previous decisions of the Chair.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. What protection have we from the Chair itself—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Jay: On a point of order—

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. If we have no confidence in the Chair—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: That is a disorderly remark.

Mr. Jay: Sir Gordon, may I put the point of order that I was attempting to put to you when you intervened—I think under a misapprehension. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was criticising some of the words contained in this Clause. You intervened and argued that it was not in order for him to do that because it was not in order to move any Amendment to the Clause.
My hon. Friend was not engaged in moving an Amendment to the Clause. He was criticising words contained in the Clause. If we are to have a Ruling that it is not in order on the Question, "That the Clause stand part", to criticise words in the Clause which might in other circumstances have amounted to an Amendment, although an Amendment is not, in fact, being moved, surely, on that Ruling, it would not be in order to criticise any words in any Clause on the Question, "That the Clause stand part". That is obviously to reduce our proceedings to an absurdity. I submit that, whatever else is in order or out of order on this rather peculiar Bill, it really must be in order to do what my hon. Friend did on the Question, "That the Clause stand part". And may I submit


to you, Sir Gordon, that if hon. Members opposite would be a little quieter our, proceedings would go a little more quickly. What I am arguing is that it must be in order, on this Question, "That the Clause stand part", to criticise the words actually contained in the Clause.

The Chairman: What the hon. Member may not do is to argue—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] —an Amendment to the Clause—[Interruption.]

Mr. Jay: If I may say so, Sir Gordon, that was very helpful to us. May we assume that you agree that, although it is not in order to do that, it is in order for my hon. Friend to criticise the words actually contained in the Clause?

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. In view of the fact that this is the Committee stage of the Bill and that there is another stage, the Report stage, in which we can amend the Bill, would it not be in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) —after all, who knows just exactly when this Bill will finish, and whether or not there will be Amendment, even from the Government point of view, before we finish—

The Chairman: We are on the Question, "That the Clause stand part".

Mr. Ross: I was asking whether or not it would be in order to argue that it would be better—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: I am afraid that that is not arguable on this Question, "That the Clause stand part".

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. As I understand it, what you have said is that we cannot discuss the words that are actually in the Clause, we cannot discuss the money concerned in the Clause, and we cannot discuss the Fund to which the Clause applies. With very great respect, would you be good enough to tell us what we can discuss?

The Chairman: That is a fair point. According to previous practice, this Bill is not debated on Committee stage.

Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order. The last thing I want to do is make more difficulties, but are you now trying to rule that this Bill is not even debatable?

The Chairman: I shall quote from Erskine May concerning the difficulties of debating it. It states:
The enacting words of the bill are not open to amendment. According to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate.

Hon. Members: Normally.

Mr. K. Robinson: This is the whole point, Sir Gordon, of what we are trying to discuss. This is an abnormal occasion —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] This is an abnormal occasion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am about to explain why, if hon. Members opposite will keep quiet. The Bill relates, however indirectly, to the National Health Service, and discussion on the Service, because of recent action by the Minister of Health, has taken on an abnormal character—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now out of order.

Mr. Robinson: I am sorry, Sir Gordon. I was led astray by hon. Members opposite. If Erskine May says that the Committee stage normally passes without debate, then, by implication, that means that there can be circumstances in which debate can arise. If I may say so with respect, it would help the Committee if you could indicate what those circumstances are in which debate could arise.

The Chairman: When other Clauses in the Bill are reached.

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. If we think that this Clause is wrongly drafted, that there is an error in it, surely we are allowed to point that out to the Government? Otherwise the Committee will be passing a Clause that might be incorrect. Surely the Committee must have an opportunity to correct an error? It is pertinent to the remarks I have made, and certainly, on a later Clause, I want to point out what I consider to be a typographical error.

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot suggest Amendments, but he can vote against this Clause.

Mr. Ross: Surely that is the very point, Sir Gordon? You have put the Question, "That the Clause stand Part of the Bill." We are in the ridiculous position that we can either vote for it


or vote against it, but we are not allowed to say why we are voting for it or against it.

The Chairman: That is the position.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Are you telling us, Sir Gordon, that, if there were a major typographical error, or a "not" were put in or left out, it would be impossible for the Committee to correct it? I understand you to be saying that. I submit that when Erskine May says "normally" he means "normally", and that he means that there may be abnormal and unusual circumstances, such as a drafting error, which must be put right in the interests of the Bill, otherwise the word "normally" does not seem to have any meaning.
It seems to me that if it is impossible for the Committee to correct an error, or what it regards, or some Members regard, as an error, we are in a wholly impossible position. We might be compelled by your Ruling, or the Rulings of your predecessors, to pass something that makes nonsense.

The Chairman: Provision to correct errors exists. That is the well-known practice of the Committee. Printers' errors cannot be discussed now.

Mr. Jay: Sir Gordon, will you elucidate a little further the reply you gave a moment ago? You were asked by my hon. Friend what would be the abnormal conditions in which it would be possible to debate this. I understood you to answer: "If there were other Clauses in the Bill." According to my reading, there are three Clauses. We are now considering Clause 1, and therefore apparently those conditions obtain, in which case, on your Ruling, it would be in order to discuss this Clause.
My second point is this. The words of Erskine May on page 748 are:
According to present practice the committee stage of such a Bill is formal and normally passes without debate.
I submit to you that Erskine May would not have inserted the word "normally" in this sentence if it had no meaning. If it were the case that it was contrary to the Rules of the House for the Clause to be debated, Erskine May would have said so. On any ordinary reading of that sentence, I should have thought

that the word "normally" meant "usually." Though it is possible according to the rules of the House for a debate to take place, according to Erskine May at the date, whenever it was when this edition appeared, it was not usual for it to do so. But if it is in order and in accordance with our rules, but not usual, then it is possible for the Committee, if it wishes, to do something which may be unusual but which is legitimate.

The Chairman: No. The word "normally" applies where you have an Appropriation Bill with other Clauses than there are in this Bill. We cannot, on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," debate the text of Erskine May.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Sir Gordon, you said in your original Ruling that one thing which we could discuss on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," was the principle of appropriations. I understand that you were quoting the words of Erskine May on the preceding page to that quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
If that is the case, would you be good enough to tell us what, in your opinion, in these circumstances, would circumscribe the argument of the principle of appropriations? You intimated that we could not debate the destination of these moneys. I understood from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North said that there must be doubt about the origin of these moneys. In view of the contradictory remarks from the Chair, would you like to make a definitive and positive statement of the principle of appropriations which Erskine May allows us to discuss at this stage of the Bill?

The Chairman: I did not say that, and I cannot alter my Ruling.

Mr. Mellish: Sir Gordon, as I see the position, you are ruling, and understandably so, on the great precedents of this House set down by this character called Erskine May. The point is that you are now ruling that because in the past Bills of this character were never formally debated we cannot now debate this one. With respect, surely our Parliament can and must on occasions decide whether the previous Rulings should be continued.
The Minister of Health is present, not just to look in but to listen. You have said that there can be no debate. Surely that is making a farce of democracy. On an issue of this kind we ought to be given some understanding that, within the bounds of order, and recognising that in the past a formal debate was never allowed, on this occasion we have a right to discuss what is now in the Bill. On the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we ought to be allowed to discuss, first, the Consolidated Fund itself, and, secondly, the amount of money involved.
I am not concerned with the wording I do not believe that the wording of this Clause counts in any way. It is the intention of the Clause that counts. I hold the view that it is the intention of the Clause that counts, and the Ruling that you have given, based as it is on great precedents, nevertheless does not hold good today because this Bill is to all intents and purposes, not the sort of Bill which Erskine May envisaged. It is a Bill that is abnormal in many ways I therefore submit, with great respect to you, Sir Gordon, that the time has come when, within the compass of the Question, "That the Clause stand part," we ought to discuss the meaning of the words, the objective and purpose of the Clause, bearing in mind our earlier proceedings in the House when we agreed to this sum of money. That is another reason why we should be allowed to debate what is to happen to the money, and why the Bill is necessary. If the rules of the House of Commons are such that we cannot debate the Bill, the Government have no right to bring a Bill like this forward. This makes absolute mockery of even producing a Bill. We might as well have asked the Leader of the House to sign it privately and not even trouble us with it. No Bill can be presented to the House of Commons without Members who are elected having the right to question it and argue about it.
10.45 p.m.
I recognise that within the limits of previous precedents we should be concerned not with Amendments and words but with the principle of the Consolidated Fund. Against that background and in the light of all that has been said, will you, Sir Gordon, consider withdrawing from the idea that, because Erskine May

tells us that it is usually or normally taken formally, it must be so taken? This is not normal. We cannot accept it as being formal. We believe it is a most important Bill. With respect, I ask you reconsider the matter.

The Chairman: I am bound to carry out the rules and decisions of the House. I cannot alter my Ruling.

Mr. Willis: Sir Gordon, am I in order in asking whether the Government are satisfied that the words to which I have drawn attention carry out that which the House of Commons wished to be carried out when it passed the Ways and Means Resolution?

The Chairman: I am sorry. I did not hear that.

Mr. Willis: My point of order is this. I drew attention to certain words in the Clause. I should like to ask the Government whether the words in the Clause do what the House of Commons wished to be done. It is surely in order to ask whether the Government are satisfied that these are the correct words.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: On a point of order. Sir Gordon, would you be so kind as to inform the Committee on what occasion the House of Commons in Committee voted away its right to debate a special Consolidated Fund Bill of this kind? We know that Erskine May records the customs which may have arisen in the House of Commons, but I ask you as the Chairman of Ways and Means to tell us now on what occasion the House of Commons in Committee voted away the right to debate the Clauses of a special Consolidated Fund Bill.

The Chairman: There are numerous decisions on this subject.

Mr. Swingler: When?

The Chairman: There are numerous decisions. I cannot argue with the hon. Member about them. The point is that this matter has already been decided by the House of Commons and cannot be altered by the Committee.

Mr. Swingler: I asked you when, Sir Gordon.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: If a decision has been taken on the Bill by the House of Commons and


as a result of that decision we cannot discuss the Clauses of the Bill, will you explain to me, Sir Gordon, why the Bill is before us tonight? If, as a result of previous decision on the allocation of this money, we are not now able to discuss it, it seems that the procedure of bringing the Bill before the Committee is to no avail. Can you please tell us why it is, Sir Gordon?

The Chairman: The House took its decision on 20th December and the Bill is to enable the Lords of the Treasury to issue the money in accordance with the wishes of the House.

Mr, Jack Jones: On a point of order. I look upon you Sir Gordon, being Chairman of Ways and Means, as the foreman in charge of these proceedings. Here we have a gang of men wishing to go to work. We have spent 35 minutes listening to the foreman in charge telling us what we may not do. That is unusual in Britain where the men usually tell the foreman what they will not do. Can you tell us by what means the gang may get to work and what it is that we can discuss instead of what we cannot discuss? What may we do?

The Chairman: Come to a decision on this Clause and get on to further stages of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Stewart: On a point of order. You have suggested, Sir Gordon. that we might be able to get to work by passing Clause 1 and then proceeding to later stages of the Bill, but our difficulty about passing Clause 1 is that hon. Members do not appear to have followed your Rulings about what is in order on the discussion of the Clause. I wish respectfully to submit to you one or two reasons why the Ruling which you have given so far might be a little narrower than the traditions and practice of the House in Committee in fact require.
In that connection, I refer first to the passage in Erskine May which has already been quoted:
According to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate.
I submit two points on that. First, "present practice" is clearly not the same thing as the strict rules of the House.

The Chairman: I have answered that point and we cannot go on debating it.

Mr. Stewart: We will pass, then, to the other point. It is said that the Bill normally passes without debate. There is no doubt to anyone who has experience of the drafting of Acts of Parliament that if a phrase like "normally passes without debate" is used, there is unquestionably admitted the proposition that there are occasions on which it is debatable. It is therefore not in the same position as, say, the Motion, "That the Question be now put," which is not debatable.

The Chairman: I think that I explained that a long time ago.

Mr. Stewart: With respect, that has not been explained. That is why my hon. Friends are puzzled and why we are not able to make the progress with the Bill which we could wish. I must repeat that since Erskine May clearly says that the Committee stage normally passes without debate, it is clear that there is at least a debatable Question. It is not comparable with the Motion, "That the Question be now put," which is always and in its own nature undebatable. This is a debatable Motion, but one which the House in Committee normally allows to go through without debate.
You have also suggested, Sir Gordon, that our debate is limited by the fact that this is not an ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill, but a Consolidated Fund Bill relating to a particular service. It is therefore relevant to consider what Erskine May tells us about the matters which have been considered to be in order on Consolidated Fund Bills of this limited kind. We are told—and I draw this to the attention of my hon. Friends who are in doubt as to what they may say—
As an illustration of this rule, it may be mentioned that discussion has been permitted on the state of Europe, so far as it depended on the conduct of the executive government, including, for example, the use made of the naval forces"—

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but that is not relevant to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Stewart: With great respect, Sir Gordon, I am referring to the passage in Erskine May on what is relevant for discussion on limited Consolidated Fund Bills.

The Chairman: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is not right. This is not discussable.

Mr. Stewart: Sir Gordon, your Ruling was given to us on the basis that this was a Consolidated Fund Bill of a limited nature. I am drawing your attention to the fact that although, according to Erskine May, we cannot discuss the constitution of Great Britain, the House of Lords, the tenure of land in Ireland—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now talking about the Second or Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: —although we cannot discuss those things, we can discuss, or have discussed, the state of Europe and the use of naval forces. Further—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now talking about the Second or Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: May I then draw your attention to another point, Sir Gordon? The objection is raised—and this, I think, applies not only to the Second and Third Readings but to the Committee stage of the Bill—that this is a Consolidated Fund Bill of limited scope, and that for that reason my hon. Friends find it difficult to say what is in their minds. But is this a Consolidated Fund Bill of limited scope? We are told so, but there is nothing at all in the Bill to limit the scope or the purposes for which the money is being—

The Chairman: Order. It is not relevant to the Motion "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Stewart: With respect, that cannot be so. It is in Clause 1 that the point I am making appears. Clause I says clearly:
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty…
a certain sum of money. The whole point is that Clause 1 simply authorises the Treasury to issue that sum of money. It does not authorise the Treasury to issue it only for a specific purpose. What

I am surprised at is that there is nothing in Clause 1 limiting the right to issue that sum of money for the specific purposes for which we all know this Bill is intended. But really, if the rules of order are to be based on the assumption that this is a Bill for a specific purpose, we are entitled to ask, particularly on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," why there is nothing at all in Clause 1 limiting the Bill to that specific purpose.
I am not proposing an Amendment to Clause 1; I am partly raising a point of order and partly giving reasons why the House should not pass Clause I. The main point of order that I am making is that you have attempted to limit what hon. Members may say on the ground that this is not a general Consolidated Fund Bill but one limited to a specific purpose. I say that there is nothing in the Bill anywhere, and particularly not in Clause 1, where, of all places, we should expect it to be, limiting this grant of money to any purpose whatever. So far as anyone can tell from reading the Bill, this money could be issued out of the Consolidated Fund Bill for any of the services for which the Government are responsible. Unless we can have a proper explanation of that from the Treasury. it seems to me impossible to maintain that this is other than a general Consolidated Fund Bill, and argument may, therefore, range over any of the services to which, under the Bill, this money might be devoted.

The Chairman: The Bill merely gives legislative authority to the Ways and Means Resolution.

Mr. Stewart: But, as we all know very well, Sir Gordon, a Ways and Means Resolution has not the force of law except for the Ways and Means Resolutions commonly known as the Budget Resolutions which have the force of law only for a certain period by virtue of a Statute, the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. There is no Statute giving force of law to any Ways and Means Resolutions other than the Budget Resolutions. Therefore, if the courts were interpreting this Bill, they could not take into account any Ways and Means Resolutions which may have been passed before the Bill came before the House of Commons. We are in the Bill giving the legislative authority.

11.0 p.m.

The Chairman: The Ways and Means Resolution is
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1961, the sum of 42,877,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stewart: That is exactly my point, Sir Gordon. There is not a word in that or in the Clause to tell us what this money is being granted for. It is no good saying that the purpose for which it will be used can be limited by Ways and Means Resolutions because what the Treasury has power to do, and what the courts will look at, is to be found in the Bill when it becomes an Act. For all that appears in Clause 1 or any other Clause, this is a general Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Mellish: I recognise that this is a difficult task for you because of the precedents which you are so strictly trying to follow, Sir Gordon, and what I have to say I offer in an effort to break through the difficulty. You will have realised that this is a matter on which hon. Members have certain views to express.
In the normal way, when we have a Committee stage of a Bill, any Bill, we put down our Amendments, we have our debates, and eventually we reach the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Those of us who still do not like it protest and argue about it. On this Bill, that is the sort of thing, I think, that some of us would like to do. I say frankly that I should like to argue whether the Consolidated Fund is the right sort of fund. Also, I wish to argue not whether the sum should be more or less but the merits of the sum involved.
I am just coming to the essential point, Sir Gordon. You are my favourite Chairman of Ways and Means. You have said, following precedent, that there is usually no debate on the Bill. What I submit, with respect, is that we cannot in 1961 decide that the Bill cannot be debated and throw the thing away like that merely because some Ruling was given in 1913. This would be idiotic. It cannot possibly be. At some time, we ought surely to debate the matter.
As my hon. Friends have pointed out, there are three Clauses in the Bill. This matter is important. Why is the Minister of Health here? Why is the Financial Secretary here? Are they present to listen to the formal passage of this stage of the Bill? Surely, we should have a ruling that we should proceed on the basis of what is before us in 1961.

The Chairman: I did not make up the rules, but I am bound by the rules of the House.

Mr. Jay: Sir Gordon—

The Chairman: I cannot go on arguing this indefinitely.

Mr. Jay: May I suggest a way out of the difficulty? You have ruled that the debate on this Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," must be extremely limited because this is a very peculiar and special sort of Consolidated Fund Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and other hon. Members have shown that there is nothing in the terms of the Bill or the Clause or anywhere to link this Bill and the powers for which the Government are asking with any particular form of expenditure. I believe that many hon. Members are extremely puzzled about how it is possible for us to legislate and vote, as we are apparently asked to do, considerable sums of money without any limitation put on the way that they should be spent.
My suggestion is that the whole of the difficulty—this has a bearing on your Ruling, Sir Gordon—could be elucidated and, perhaps, overcome if the Financial Secretary, who has come here tonight, presumably, to throw light on topics of this sort, were to explain why he is asking for money in this Clause with no particular reference to any form of expenditure while at the same time we are told that debate is limited because the form of expenditure is most particular. If he could explain that, we should be able to make progress, I think.

The Chairman: The debate is limited because this Committee cannot overrule the decision already made by the House.

Mr. Mellish: Would it be right to say, Sir Gordon, that as you are now ruling, even if the Financial Secretary


to the Treasury wanted to get up and say something to us, you would not allow him to rise?

The Chairman: I would allow any hon. Member to rise. I cannot stop him.

Mr. Mellish: If you allowed him to rise and make a statement, surely that is against the very precedent you have quoted that you would not allow any debate. Now you tell us that you would allow him to rise, and I suggest that he might do so since he is here and ready to do so.

The Chairman: I cannot stop hon. Members from rising, but when they speak they might be out of order. Then it is my duty to tell them so.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Further to that point of order. You have just suggested, Sir Gordon, that the Committee cannot overrule a decision that the House has already arrived at. Eventually, you will be putting the Question on the Clause. The Committee will be asked to vote upon it. Suppose that the Committee, in its wisdom, decides to reject the Clause. What will be the situation then?

The Chairman: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: On a point of order—

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order—

The Chairman: I have given my Ruling. I am bound by the rules and I cannot hear any more points of order on the subject.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: On a fresh point of order, Sir Gordon—

The Chairman: We cannot have a debate on a decision of the Chair.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I very much regret, Sir Gordon, as we all do, that we should have had to spend such a long time on points of order. I assure you that this was not our wish. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly not [Interruption.] We wish to discuss the really important issues, and I am astounded that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), the watchdog of the public purse, should have displayed—

The Chairman: We are discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gaitskell: I quite agree, Sit Gordon. I was interrupted in the course of what I was saying. I am sure you will agree that when an intervention, and a rather rude one, is made, one is entitled to make a brief reply to it. That is all I was doing. I was merely saying that I was astounded that the noble Lord showed such little interest in the expenditure of this large sum of money. We will think very little of him when in future he raises questions concerning public expenditure.
I wish to put this to you, Sir Gordon. You have explained to us exactly what the rules of order, according to Erskine May, are. We recognise, of course—

The Chairman: They are the rules of my predecessors.

Mr. Gaitskell: As set forth in Erskine May. I assume that you were not quoting from some unknown document.

The Chairman: I have other authorities apart from Erskine May.

Mr. Gaitskell: This is an interesting new development. I am not aware that it is usual to quote anything else. However, as it happens, what you have said to us is in keeping with pages 747 and 748 of Erskine May and I do not wish to challenge that. I do, however, submit this. Erskine May lays down that when it is a matter of procedure in Committee on Consolidated Fund Bills of a limited kind, there are a number of things which may not be raised in debate. It is set out in page 747. Then, as you have said, the paragraph ends on page 748 with the sentence
According to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate.
If this were intended to mean that no debate was allowable, surely Erskine May would have said so. There are, of course, a number of Motions which we consider in the House which are put to the House, or to the Committee, which are not debatable—we all know that. For example, the Report stage of a Ways and Means Resolution and the Closure Motion, if it is accepted—

Mr. James Callaghan: It always is.

Mr. Gaitskell: —are not debatable. Obviously, if that had been the case with that Committee, Erskine May would have said so. Erskine May does not say that, but, after putting certain limitations on what may be said, says that
According to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without a debate.
It is our submission that there is a big difference between something which is debatable, though it normally passes without debate, and something which is not debatable at all. With great respect, what my right hon. and hon. Friends have felt so far is that they have not been able to express an opinion at all because it has been treated as though this were a non-debatable Motion. I am sure that that was not your intention when you proposed the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Of course you did not mean that. Obviously, if you had meant that you would not have allowed any of us to speak at all but would have put the Question. You did not do that. You invited, by refraining from putting the Question, hon. Members on either side of the Committee to get up and speak; but if they get up to speak, presumably there must be many things which it is in order to say.
I think, with respect, some of the things which have been said are in order. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) made an extremely relevant point, I thought. He raised the whole question of the relationship of this Bill and the Ways and Means Resolution. We do not expect you, Sir Gordon, to answer that. We do not see how you could. It is not your business.
We do expect the Government to answer it. How can it possibly be said they would be out of order in answering a question of this kind? In these circumstances, I am sorry, but we must really ask for a reply to the points my hon. and right hon. Friends have put. I think they are valid. You have been kind enough not to rule them all out of order. In these circumstances, I hope you will allow debate on the narrow issue. There will be other opportunities, I suppose, on Third Reading. I think I heard you say there were things which would be much more debatable on Third Reading. There are things on this Clause which are important. If the Financial Secretary can be allowed to speak—I think he is

rising to his feet—I hope we may be allowed to hear him. We should like to hear him on this. Then we can, no doubt, get on.

The Chairman: There are great technical difficulties about debating this matter. A difficulty is that we cannot overrule the decision of the House. Therefore, the debate is extremely limited, and limited to the fact that we would authorise the Lords of the Treasury to apply money in the way Parliament has ordered.

Mr. Robinson: On a point of order. You have said again, Sir Gordon, that we cannot overrule a previous decision of the House, but surely, as one of my hon. Friends said, it is possible to vote against the Clause, and that would in fact be overruling the previous decision of the House. I think most of my hon. Friends find it very difficult to equate that fact with your Ruling. I wonder if you could help us on this matter?

The Chairman: This Committee cannot overrule the previous decision of the House.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): ; Which previous decision?

The Chairman: The Ways and Means Resolution approved by the House.

Mr. Robinson: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Popplewell: Which decision of the House are we discussing? We are discussing a Ways and Means Resolution—

The Chairman: Of 20th December.

Mr. Popplewell: Where does it say that in the Clause? I listened very attentively to know exactly which Ways and Means Resolution we are referring to. There is nothing in the Bill—

Mr. Callaghan: Or on the Order Paper.

Mr. Popplewell: —or on the Order Paper which informs me which decision we are discussing. You have ruled, Sir Gordon, that the discussion must be very limited. Indeed, it is questionable whether we can discuss anything at all. I think we—

The Chairman: Hon. Members cannot go on to debate the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Popplewell: Far be it from me to want to debate it. I am seeking information as to what we are discussing.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is debating.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Gaitskell: I think you said that it was not possible for the Committee to overrule a previous decision. This puzzles me because, as one of my hon. Friends has already said, supposing the Committee were to reject this Clause. In due course you will be putting the Question, and it will be possible to divide upon it. Suppose the Clause were to be rejected: are you saying, Sir Gordon, that that would be nonsense? Surely that cannot be so. If, nevertheless, it were to be taken seriously, that would mean overruling a previous decision.

The Chairman: The Committee cannot overrule the decision of the House. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that. if Clause 1 is defeated, then we go on to Clause 2.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am very glad to say that is a point on which we would agree with you, but nevertheless it leaves open the rather peculiar situation that the Committee would have decided to reject Clause 1, thereby overruling, presumably, the decision taken by the House when it debated on Report the Ways and Means Resolution. I was asking you what would be the situation. We would certain go on to Clause 2, but would the Bill be valid in those circumstances?

The Chairman: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, perhaps this little interchange has cleared up confusion, in my own mind, at any rate, concerning what you said about the Committee not being able to overrule the House. Clearly it can at least contradict the House.

The Chairman: If the Committee does not agree it will refuse permission to the Lords of the Treasury to make the payment.

Mr. Gaitskell: We can agree that that is a distinction without a difference and leave it at that. I do not wish to quarrel

with you any further. You were kind enough to say what we could discuss on this Clause, and that was very helpful. You said we could discuss whether the Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund this sum of money for this particular purpose. If that is the case, it clears the issue a great deal. I think there is a lot we can discuss on that. My hon. Friends, having clarified the situation, can argue on the point you said we can argue on. Would you be kind enough to read out the words again so that my hon. Friends can take note of them and keep in order?

The Chairman: The sole purpose of the Clause is to authorise the Lords of the Treasury to apply money voted by Parliament in the way Parliament has ordered.

Mr. Mellish: Could I speak against the Lords of the Treasury applying such money?

Mr. Fernyhough: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had the floor until these points of order began. I think it is now time that he was permitted to resume his speech.

Mr. Willis: I have no wish, of course, to occupy the time of the Committee. All I was seeking to do was to question the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he was satisfied with the words to which I drew attention. Perhaps, in view of the long period between my former remarks and now, I might be allowed to draw attention to them again. It is first of all in regard to the word "may"—not Erskine May, but the Treasury "may"—

The Chairman: I am sorry. This is not in order.

Mr. Willis: I did ask you specifically whether it was in order to ask the Financial Secretary and the Government whether they were satisfied that this Clause did what the House wanted to be done, and whether they were satisfied that these words were correct. On that occasion, I understood, you said it would be in order, and now I am asking the Financial Secretary to reply to my question.

Mr. Mellish: May I put this further point to you, Sir Gordon? You said that in a Bill of this kind there can only be a limited discussion. You said this to


my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I recognise that and accept it, but if you rule that there can only be a limited discussion you cannot also rule that there can be no discussion at all.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must speak to the Motion. He seems to me to be questioning the decision.

Mr. Mellish: On the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", may I raise a question regarding the Treasury? If I am in order I shall be very happy. This is what my hon. Friends want to know. I do not believe that the Treasury ought to be allowed to issue moneys out of the Consolidated Fund; I do not believe that, because I believe that the Fund is the wrong fund for this purpose. Secondly, which is a simple political point, I do not trust the present Treasury.
It seems to me, therefore, that when we are discussing a Clause of this kind the whole question comes up of whether moneys of this kind ought to come out of a Consolidated Fund of this description. The Treasury controls this Fund. I hope that we shall hear more from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about this, but I want to make perfectly clear that I do not believe that moneys of this kind ought to come out of this Fund. I make that point because I do not believe that this is the right way. I believe that there are other ways in which moneys could be found in a proper manner. Now that we are over this initial hurdle—that I do not trust the Treasury and I do not believe that the Consolidated Fund is the appropriate source—perhaps we can hear my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).

Mr. K. Robinson: I think that we have now sorted out the various matters raised in the last hour. Those that are relevant and can be discussed under the Clause are not many but they are important. Before the Financial Secretary speaks, I should like to reiterate one matter that was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). It is most extraordinary that we have been discussing with the Chair for an hour what we may or may not

discuss under the Clause, on the basis that this is a Consolidated Fund Bill of a special nature.

The Chairman: No, that is not correct.

Mr. Robinson: I must apologise if I am a little confused by the very large number of Rulings which have been given from the Chair, some of which seem to me a little self-contradictory. But I understand that this was not a normal Consolidated Fund Bill but a special one and that therefore special considerations applied to what was debatable under it.

The Chairman: It is not an abnormal but a smaller Bill. I was trying to distinguish it from the general Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Manuel: It is obvious that the Committee has got into extreme difficulty. Many hon. Members on this side of the Committee have tried to raise points within the limited scope which you have indicated, Sir Gordon, without managing to be in order. Could you at this stage loudly and clearly indicate to the Committee what would be in order under the Clause?

The Chairman: We have dealt with that.

Mr. Robinson: If I may return to the point, I should like to refer to Erskine May, which on page 746 says:
Thus, whereas the field of debate on the main Consolidated Fund Bill of the year and upon the Appropriation Bill is normally commensurate with the whole range of administrative policy"—

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member going to argue points of order or is he going on to discuss the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

Mr. Robinson: I am trying to put a point to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and was in the process of doing so when you called me to order, Sir Gordon. I am now trying to justify putting the point to the hon. Gentleman and trying to support what I said by quoting from Erskine May about the distinction between this type of Consolidated Fund Bill and the main Consolidated Fund Bill of the year. I thought that some of the difficulty that we are in arose from that distinction.
What I am asking the Financial Secretary is why the Committee is not informed of the purposes for which the


sum of money is required. It is simply presented as the sum of £42,877,600. If we are limited to the purposes for which the money is required, should not the Bill somewhere tell us the purposes for which the money is required? This is a very simple point, Sir Gordon, and one which I am sure the Financial Secretary, with your permission, would be very pleased to explain to the Committee.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Within the context of the Ways and Means Resolution that we passed in Committee on 20th December last year, I want to draw attention to the word "eight" in page 1, line 20 of the Bill and ask whether this is in conformity with the Resolution that we passed. At that time the Resolution was based on our deliberations on 5th and 6th December, and in those deliberations —I presume that this is the reason why the Minister of Health is here—we were given various assurances as to the total sums of money involved, which, according to what we are told by the Government in presenting this Bill today, amount to £42,877,600. I want to know whether this includes the sum of £500,000 to which reference was made by the Minister of Health during our discussions on 5th and 6th December—

The Chairman: One of the things which is quite clear is that we cannot on this Question discuss expenditure.

Dr. Mabon: With all respect, Sir Gordon, I am merely questioning—I am not suggesting an Amendment—whether or not—

The Chairman: We must not discuss expenditure on this Question.

Dr. Mahon: I am not arguing whether it is a good expenditure or a bad one, Sir Gordon. I am not arguing its validity. I am merely asking a question as to the arithmetic of the sum in the light of the Ways and Means Resolution of 20th December. The Ways and Means Resolution—I think I saw the Leader of the House nodding in agreement about the point. I am making—was based on our deliberations on 5th and 6th December. On that occasion the Minister of Health made a certain remark about £500,000, which I presume is part of this sum—

The Chairman: That cannot be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Mahon: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. At what juncture may I ask whether or not this total sum of money includes the article which I understood the Minister of Health specifically exempted from the Ways and Means Resolution? Is it now included in this amount?

The Chairman: That question cannot be asked at this stage.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I will endeavour, Sir Gordon, to answer one or two of the points made by hon. Members opposite, and I will also endeavour, having listened to your Rulings, to keep in order.
I think I should be in order, perhaps, in explaining how the Bill, whose first Clause we are discussing, arose in the first place. Supplementary Estimates under the National Health Service, England and Wales, and the National Health Service, Scotland, totalling £43,877,600 were presented to the House last November primarily to meet the cost of the Pilkington award. These Supplementary Estimates were passed in Committee of Supply on 5th December and on Report on 20th December, and a Consolidated Fund Bill to give effect to the Ways and Means Resolution was introduced and read the First time on 21st December, 1960. Perhaps I should be in order at this stage in mentioning that the reason why in Clause 3 the Measure is cited as the 1960 Act is that it received its First Reading on 21st December, 1960.
I should like to answer two points raised by hon. Members opposite which, as I understand your Rulings, Sir Gordon, are perfectly in order. First, hon. Members opposite ask why there is no reference in the Bill to the National Health Service. There are two reasons. I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who put this point very clearly. The first point is that no Bill founded on a Ways and Means Resolution ever has actually in the Bill any reference to the date of that Resolution. That is not just true of a special Consolidated Fund Bill; it is true of all Bills introduced in this House


that are founded on a Ways and Means Resolution. The other point is that this is not an Appropriation Bill but a Consolidated Fund Bill founded on a Ways and Means Resolution. It authorises the expenditure of a certain sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund, but it does not appropriate that sum of money for any particular purpose.
11.30 p.m.
I would at this stage, if I may, remind the Committee of the difference between three types of Bill. This Bill is founded on a very large Supplementary Estimate —and I will come to the point put by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in a moment. We shall before very long be dealing with a Consolidated Fund Bill which gives legislative effect to the Ways and Means Resolution supporting the Vote on Account. That is a different Bill, because the House has had sight of the Vote on Account—in fact, without realising it, it approved the first stage of that Vote on Account this afternoon. The House has a sight of that Vote on Account before we come to that Bill. Then, at the very end of the Supply season, we finally pass the Appropriation Bill, which is a different kind of Bill again.
Very early in our discussion, the hon. Member for Bermondsey very properly put a point which, as I see it, is quite in order—quite indubitably in order. He asked why we should have to vote this sum of money from this particular source. There is a perfectly simple answer to that. If we were not having this Consolidated Fund Bill this evening, any advance on the National Health Service Vote would have to be met from the Civil Contingencies Fund. I do not think that it will surprise any of the ex-F.S.Ts. —if I may so put it—who may be present, to know that that Fund would almost certainly be unable to bear that extra strain. It is for that reason that we are asking for this Bill, and I hope that, having been given that explanation, the Committee will agree to pass Clause 1.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: But can the Financial Secretary explain why, in Clause 1, it is proposed to take the money out of the Consolidated Fund, whereas in Clause 2 the hon. Gentleman

lets the cat out of the bag and says that we have not any money, anyway, and will have to borrow it?

Sir E. Boyle: Clause 1, with which we are at the moment dealing, deals with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund. Clause 2 deals with what I might call the more technical, financial aspect of the financing of the Government's activities and, strictly, I do not think that that aspect arises on our dealing with Clause 1.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Financial Secretary has told us that the only reason for there being no mention of the Health Service in the Bill is that there never is any such mention. If he will forgive my saying so, that does not seem an adequate reason. As the Bill now stands. what is to prevent the money being used for other purposes? Granted we never do mention the specific service in a Bill like this, may it not be that our practice has always been wrong? After all, that does happen. For years and years it was assumed that the Budget Resolutions had the force of law before the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act was passed. Then we discovered that we had always been wrong, and had to put it right. That being so, can we have a better reason than that we have always done it in this way?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think that the Committee has been wrong on this issue. The hon. Gentleman rarely slips on a technical point, but I must say that he is now failing to distinguish between a Consolidated Fund Bill and an Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Financial Secretary tell the Committee why his hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) is not present and whether he has collapsed—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. K. Robinson: We are, of course, anxious that the Government should get the Clause, and I should like to thank the Financial Secretary for his explanation which, I am quite sure, has made things very much clearer to my right hon. and hon. Friends than they were when he first started to speak. He has not, however, answered my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) as to how we are to know that this money will,


in fact, be expended for the purpose for which he has told us it is intended. There does seem to us to be no guarantee that this will meet the purpose that it is the wish of the Government and the Committee it should meet.
Further, the hon. Gentleman said that this money was coming from this source —that is, the Consolidated Fund—as, otherwise, any advance on the National Health Service would have to be met out of the Civil Contingencies Fund which is not, in the normal way, large enough to bear such a large, fortuitous drawing as this Supplementary Estimate would have required. Would it not be found equally possible, so to speak, to reinforce the Civil Contingencies Fund, so that an enlarged Civil Contingencies Fund could then be used to provide the £42,877,600 required by the Bill?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that it would be the view of both sides of the Committee that too swollen a Civil Contingencies Fund would be rather a dangerous thing from the point of view of control by Parliament over expenditure. I think that would be the general view.
I can only say again that we shall be coming later in the season to the question of the Consolidated Fund Appropriation Bill. In the meantime, I give my personal assurance, from my dealings with the Minister of Health, that, assuming the Committee decides to pass this Clause, the money will be spent in the way the House assumed when it passed the Ways and Means Resolution in December last year.

Mr. Tom Driberg: While sharing the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) to expedite progress of the Bill, before we let the Clause go irrevocably I would like an explanation from the Financial Secretary, if he would be so kind, of what appears to be a rather substantial variation in wording between Clause 1 and Clause 2.
I appreciate that I cannot now discuss Clause 2 because we have not reached it yet. On the other hand, if we do not now draw attention to the variation in wording, it will be impossible to do it once we have passed Clause 1. In Clause 1 are the words
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted

to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, the sum of forty-two million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds.
But in Clause 2, a totally different form of words is used. It does not say
…the sum of forty-million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds.
but
—any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole forty-two million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds.
I should be grateful for an explanation of that difference in wording. Clause deals with what is issued out of the Consolidated Fund. It may be that Her Majesty may not need the whole of this £42,877,600. If she does not need ail this sum indicated—or, rather, not indicated—I cannot see why we should not have the same form of words
…any sum or sums…
We are all anxious to avoid excessive Government expenditure on the National Health Service or anything else.

Sir E. Boyle: Issuing is regarded for purposes of Supply as one process, whereas borrowings can be a series of quite separate operations. That point arises on Clause 2, but that is the difference between issuing and borrowings.

Mr. Swingler: I do not want to prevent the Committee getting on, but after the discussion we have had on the nature of the proceedings it is worth while considering one or two things stated in the Bill. I understand that the Financial Secretary has explained the Clause by pointing out that we have, in the House, sanctioned expenditure on doctors' and dentists' pay to a certain extent.
We are now asked to give authority to the Government to draw a certain sum of money, but apparently we are not directing the Government to spend the money in this way. They might decide to spend it on raising old age pensions, or on hospital buildings, in which case—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but we cannot discuss expenditure.

Mr. Swingler: As I understood it, the Financial Secretary specifically said that the sum of money mentioned in Clause 1


was not specifically attached to any purpose. He explained how it was connected with the proceedings in the House, but it is clear from the wording —and he explained it in a most illuminating way—that in Clause 1 we do not direct the Government to draw this money for a specific purpose. Therefore, somebody might come along and think that the Government were drawing it, for example, for hospital building, or to withdraw the Health Service charges, or to withdraw the National Health Service Contributions Bill. He might think that. But the Financial Secretary has explained that because we have previously sanctioned certain expenditure which is to the equivalent sum of money mentioned in the Clause, it is necessary for the Government to gain the authority to draw this sum of money.
However, it must be clear that in passing Clause 1 we are giving—and this is the nature of these Consolidated Fund Proceedings—carte blanche to the Government to spend this money as they will as regards the Bill and as regards Clause 1. It does not say they must spend it on the Health Service, let alone on doctors' pay. As I say, it might be spent on pensions, or on defence, or on something else. We are saying that the Government can draw £40 million—

The Chairman: We cannot discuss expenditure.

Mr. Swingler: I am not discussing expenditure. I am discussing the reasons in Clause 1 for giving the Government financial authority and the peculiar nature of our proceedings which caused the disputation earlier tonight.
I have always understood that before we vote Supply in this Committee we are entitled to ventilate grievances. That is what has been in some doubt here tonight.

The Chairman: This is not a Committee of Supply.

Mr. Swingler: We are authorising the Government to draw a fairly large sum of money—£40 million. Some hon. Members of the Committee seem to have been in favour of voting it on the nod and saying: "We will let it go. All it is

is 40 million quid." Only because of probing and cross-examination have we discovered, first, the nature of the Bill—

The Chairman: We are not voting the money now. It has been voted by the Committee of Ways and Means, and the House has approved that decision.

Mr. Swingler: Then what is the purpose of Clause 1? You are implying, Sir Gordon, that there is no purpose in these proceedings. Why have the Bill? Why bring in a Consolidated Fund Bill?

The Chairman: If the hon. Member had been present he would have known that we had been over that.

Mr. Swingler: Consolidated Fund Bills have a certain importance and a certain authority. They are necessary to sanction things which have previously been done by the House and by the Committee. That is one of the reasons why we are entitled to insist on a certain amount of discussion on them.
The Financial Secretary has given a most illuminating account of the way the system works and why we are giving authority for this sum of money to be drawn. What I wish to underline is this. First, it is important that this matter should be discussed, if only to enable the representative of the Treasury to recall the previous proceedings of the Ways and Means Committee which sanctioned the expenditure and gave rise to the Bill. Secondly, to ensure that the Clauses in the Bill are in order, otherwise it will be extremely easy for the Government to slip in a few extra millions and pass the Bill on the nod and say that we have given them authority to do exactly what they like.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Committee is interested in the question of Consolidated Fund Bills, and, after all, it is out of an interest of this kind that we occasionally get a check on our Constitution, and sometimes an improvement of it.
I should like to ask the Financial Secretary one or two questions about this Clause. The Clause gives the Treasury power to
issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom
a certain sum of money and apply it in a certain way. I have always been


very interested in the Consolidated Fund. My first question is: where is it, what is it, and how does one issue anything out of it?

11.45 p.m.

The Chairman: The House of Commons has already passed the Resolution.

Mr. Mitchison: We are asked to agree to a Clause giving the Treasury power to issue out of the Consolidated Fund. If we do not know what the words mean, how can we pass it? I am trying to find out. I have heard of the Consolidated Fund, but I have never found it anywhere.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that the House of Commons has already passed a Resolution that it should come out of the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Mitchison: Is not that rather a rash assumption? It is just possible that the House of Commons passed it, as it has passed other Consolidated Fund Bills, inadvertently and that on this occasion, its interest fully aroused, it wants to know what the Consolidated Fund is, above all where it is, and what the process of issuing out of it consists of.
I do not wish to anticipate, but the Financial Secretary is well aware that the Bill goes on to provide for borrowing. If the Government have money in the Consolidated Fund, why is there any need to borrow? How much is there in the Consolidated Fund at the moment?

The Chairman: That is not in order on Clause 1.

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps we can raise that matter on Clause 2. For the moment, keeping strictly to Clause 1, will the Financial Secretary tell us what the Consolidated Fund is, where it is, in what form it is kept, and how anything is issued out of it? If he can add how much there is in it at the moment, we shall be in a better position to make a decision on the Clause.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: When the hon. and learned Gentleman was supporting a Labour Government, did he ever ask that Government the same question? If he did not know the answer, why did he back them up blindly?

Mr. Mitchison: The answer to the hon. Member is quite simple. I am relatively young, and I live and learn. This is the first time this important question has ever arisen in my mind. It has arisen now because we are being asked to decide whether the Treasury should issue out of the Consolidated Fund a considerable sum. I will let the hon. Gentleman into a secret. It is more money than I have. I am anxious to know what the Consolidated Fund is, where it is, in what form it is, and how anything is issued out of it.

Mr. John Diamond: I am grateful to you, Sir Gordon, as I am sure the whole of the Committee is, for allowing a short but limited and entirely relevant discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", if for no other reason than this. If there were no discussion, what would be the point of the Patronage Secretary waiting here to move the closure to the discussion which is not taking place?
You, Sir Gordon, have helped us to understand that the Clause is totally different from the Ways and Means Resolution and is in no sense a contradiction of it. The Clause is a piece of machinery. It is a piece of accounting and financial machinery as a result of which the will of the House with regard to Ways and Means is implemented in a particular way. The particular way proposed in the Clause is that the money should be issued out of the Consolidated Fund.
I share the view of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that this matter should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Nevertheless, I hope that it does not mean that by dealing with it expeditiously they are proposing to those of us who have listened very carefully on the back benches that we should assent to this proceeding.
On the contrary, I feel that they should allow us to use our consciences in these matters and, if we feel that an inflationary step like this ought not to be taken, then to vote against it. We want to make it absolutely clear to you, Sir Gordon, and it has been, if anything, confirmed by the Financial Secretary, that the effect of issuing this money out of the Consolidated Fund is coming very nearly to bankrupting the nation. This is creating far more credit than is proper or appropriate.

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is now discussing expenditure.

Mr. Diamond: That is the last thing I intended to discuss, and I did not use the word once. I am sorry if my words have been misleading to you, Sir Gordon.
What I was attempting to say was that whereas the Ways and Means Resolution dealt with expenditure, this Bill, in contrast with that, is merely a piece of accounting or financial machinery by means of which the wishes of the House, expressed in the Ways and Means Resolution, are given effect, but in a particular way, which is issuing, which is a mere book-keeping entry, in effect, and by no means to be assimilated with an item of expenditure, drawing of cash, or anything like that.
It is a little misleading to say "issue", because this is a mere book-keeping entry, a financial practice followed by the House of Commons for many years. The creation of credit, however, is by no means synonymous with the incurring of expenditure.

The Chairman: That does not arise on this Clause.

Mr. Diamond: May I in deference explain the point, and then if you say that it is out of order, Sir Gordon, I will, of course, immediately proceed to the next?
As the Financial Secretary has clearly explained, there is no money in this Fund to meet the issue which it is proposed in Clause 1 to make. If the Clause is to have any meaning, it can be only by the result of further Clauses which will enable money to be borrowed. There is no money in the Consolidated Fund and it is not my fault that the Clauses were numbered in this order and that Clause 1 is the decision to issue out of the Consolidated Fund although Clause 2 gives the practical possibility to the decision to issue by borrowing the money which may be issued. It is not my fault that the Clauses were put in that order and it would be entirely out of order to refer to subsequent Clauses. Indeed, how does one know how the Committee will deal with subsequent Clauses?
I am referring to the inflationary effect of passing Clause 1 and of issuing a sum of no less than nearly £43 million from the Consolidated Fund when the Fund

has not been fed with money to enable that to be done. I do not think that I need underline at length, but one should shortly underline, the reasons why I say that this has an inflationary effect. No one can maintain that the country is now in a deflationary situation. If we were in a deflationary situation, the one thing needed would be to inflate or, as the economists say, reflate the economy. It is not argued on either side of the Committee that that is the case. Far from that, it is admitted on both sides, and particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself who has made many speeches inside and outside the House of Commons saying that he is not entitled to take steps which would lead to an increase of inflationary pressure.

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend will surely agree that there is a great deal of slack in the economy at the moment.

Mr. Diamond: There is a great deal of slack in the economy and there is a great deal of slack in places other than the economy. But on this limited issue—and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with distinguished position must not attempt to lead me out of order—we are discussing a matter on which we have had many precise and clear Rulings from the Chair, and I shall argue only on the basis of what is admitted. It would be out of order for me to argue certain things which have not been admitted and which should have been admitted although they have not been admitted and one is on much safer ground in taking only the view of the Front Bench opposite, which is that we are in an inflationary or near inflationary situation and that no steps should be taken to make that situation worse. The passing of the Clause, which is what we are discussing and nothing else, would create a further credit of nearly £43 million without any base to it.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I think that is issuing money and not creating further credit.

Mr. Diamond: That makes my point all the easier, and I am grateful to you for your Ruling, Sir William. It is much more evident, if one is talking about the issuing of money, that my point is well founded. Although some people find it difficult to understand the relationship


between credit and money, it is evident to everybody, I should think, that the issuing of money is a simple process and that the one thing one cannot do with money is to issue it when it is not there.
This Clause refers to the issue of no less a sum of money than nearly £43 million. To issue nearly £43 million out of a fund which has not got it to issue is an undertaking which only the most irresponsible of Governments would attempt to put before the Committee. The Government are supposed to be the guardians of the national purse, and it is they who should be showing us steps in financial probity. But, far from that, they are suggesting that we in this Committee, who are giving this matter every possible consideration, should take the unusual step—no wonder it is referred to in Erskine May as abnormal—of issuing the sum of £43 million out of a fund which, on the statement of the Financial Secretary alone, has not got the money to be issued. It is perfectly true that that may be put right later on, hut, as I have said before, it would not be in order for me to refer to that now. I am limited strictly to arguments related to this very narrow issue as to which, the Committee will be delighted to know, whereas Erskine May has said since 1913 we may not discuss it, Erskine May will no longer be able to say it.
I am now addressing my remarks to both Front Benches. I have already criticised the Government Front Bench for its irresponsible attitude in putting before the Committee a proposal to issue £42,877,600 which is not there, and I appeal also to my own Front Bench to have the courage to express our convictions about a financial procedure of this kind. It has been very difficult for us to get out of the Government what they were trying to do. Now we understand. We understand the modesty of the Financial Secretary in not wishing to rise to his feet earlier in the proceedings.

Mr. Mellish: Would my hon. Friend bear this in mind? One of the complications and difficulties is the wickedness of the Government in seeking to give certain people a sum of money out of a fund which does not contain that amount of money.

Mr. Ross: They are a shameful lot. They are behaving just like Tories.

Mr. Diamond: I am in the difficulty to which many of my hon. Friends have referred to. Much as I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), there is nothing in this Clause relating to any other Clause or any other action of the Government.

Mr. Mellish: But one fact has been established by what the Financial Secretary has said. This Bill gives effect to a Ways and Means Resolution of some time ago, and that Ways and Means Resolution makes clear the purpose to which the money was to be devoted when Parliament so voted it. Therefore, it is all the more relevant for my hon. Friend to argue that this was a despicable act.

Mr. Diamond: I am in some difficulty about that. When we were discussing that Resolution I was in the Chair. This is a different occasion.

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend knows all about it then.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: Do I understand that my hon. Friend wishes to oppose this Clause entirely on financial considerations, but that this has nothing to do with expenditure because we are not allowed to discuss expenditure? Therefore, when we oppose the Clause, it will be interpreted not as opposition to the Pilkington Report but to the Government machinery giving effect to that Report?

12 m.

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has followed every word I have been saying. It gives me great confidence in addressing the Committee for a moment or two more, because I had previously assumed that I was not, perhaps, speaking with sufficient clarity. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. There is nothing in the Clause or in what we may do tonight when we come to vote to relate it, otherwise than by assumption, to the Pilkington Report or to the remuneration of doctors. We have been told by the Chair on many occasions that we are not discussing expenditure and we are not entitled to do so. We are discussing a matter of bookkeeping or the payment of money out of a Fund wherein is not to be found the money to pay out.
We should not adopt this practice, I suggest. It may have been adopted


hitherto, but it is to the credit of this Opposition that they have discovered an error and weakness in the practice previously adopted by Parliament in conducting its financial affairs. A vote on this matter could not in any sense be taken to mean that the Opposition oppose the sums of money being paid out for any certain purpose, be it for doctors' remuneration or anything else.

Mr. Swingler: As I understand it, my hon. Friend's objection: is that there is not sufficient money in the Consolidated Fund to cover this awaal, with which we all agree. What is the objection to an overdraft on the Consolidated Fund?

Mr. Ross: The Government have not got any credit.

Mr. Diamond: Naturally, I should wish to answer that question, if I am permitted to do so. I have a great distaste for spending what one has not got. I have expressed such views with regard to excessive hire-purchase borrowing, which puts people into difficulties. By way of short example, I will say that we are now in a position where, each year, double the number of people are going to gaol for non-payment of debt.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going a long way from the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Diamond: I was mentioning that merely as an example.

Mr. Willis: Surely, my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the Government should go to gaol.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: Only the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friends do not seem to appreciate fully that I have a train to catch at half-past four, and I am very anxious, as, no doubt, many of my hon. Friends are, to have ample time to discuss the Bill. With their assistance, I hope to draw my remarks to an early close.
I appeal once more to the Opposition Front Bench and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to set an example of good leadership and determination. We are very glad he stayed with us and supported us in all our

debates on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee)?"] We do not find a need for our Chief Whip in quite so obvious a fashion as do the Government and, of course, he does not serve the same purpose. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider what seemed to be his view earlier. I suggest that we should be allowed to discuss this matter. We are discussing, for the first time since 1913, and probably for the first time this century, a Clause of this kind on the Committee stage of a restricted and limited Consolidated Fund Bill. This will be regarded as a precedent and it will be quoted and used many times.
Owing to the wisdom and help of the Chair, we are able to have this discussion, and I suggest that we should consider very carefully whether we should, in full knowledge of what we are doing, adopt a procedure which will land us in enormous difficulties—near bankruptcy, as I said, to begin with—and approve the issue of nearly £43 million out of a Fund which at this moment, as we have been told by the Financial Secretary, has not the wherewithal to support such a payment out. If we were to do that, we too, would be regarded as irresponsible. Nobody can say that having given the matter consideration at this hour of the morning, we can be considered anything but wholly responsible. We have had considerable difficulty in elucidating the essence of the matter and making it clear to all occupants of the Chamber, including the occupants of the Front Bench opposite. Having done that, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree with me that this is a matter which we cannot let pass without registering our strongest disapproval.

Mr. Gaitskell: I had not intended to intervene again in this debate, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has said obliges me to comment briefly on some of the points he made. First, I thank him for the kind remarks he made about me personally. They are all the more welcome in view of the clear difference of opinion between us as to the exact significance of the Clause.
If I thought that the Clause would involve the country in a serious inflationary situation, I would without hesitation advise my right hon. and hon.


Friends to vote against it. The question is, is that the case? I know that if I were to go into too great detail on the broader implications, Sir William, you would say that I was out of order, and I have no intention of doing that. One could discuss whether it was a good idea for a little more or a little less money to be running about in the economic system. I take a view rather contrary to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. I think that there is a good deal of slack in the economy, and there would, therefore, be less danger—

The Deputy-Chairman: rose—

Mr. Gaitskell: I was about to leave that subject, Sir William.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is putting me in a difficulty. He is going a long way from the Clause.

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend put me in a difficulty. That was the trouble.
Leaving those broader aspects on one side, there remains the question of whether the Bill in any sense is inflationary in that it involves the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, which, apparently, does not exist, of a sum of money. I thought I understood this before my hon. Friend spoke, but—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The right hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor of the Exchequer. He must surely understand the British financial practice and method of conducting affairs out of and through the Consolidated Fund and the methods of borrowing involved. It is sinful of him to make out that he does not understand the basis of the English financial system.

Mr. Gaitskell: I had hoped that the Leader of the House, with his expert knowledge, greater even than that of the F.S.T., would have explained it to us rather more fully.
I am simply dealing with the serious argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester concerning whether we should divide against the Clause. I do not think that it is inflationary, and if we were to withhold our assent to the Clause, despite the subtlety of my hon. Friend's arguments, I think that it would be misunderstood by the doctors for

whom this sum of money, in some indirect fashion, is intended. That is a point which, as a politician, I have to bear in mind, and I am sure that my hon. Friend understands.
If it were possible for my hon. Friend to convince the doctors who are interested in the Pilkington award that he meant them no harm in opposing the Clause, that would be a different matter, but. lucid and comprehensive though my hon. Friend's remarks were, I do not think that they will reach the medical profession quite in the way he supposed.

Mr. Mellish: Surely, the answer—and my right hon. Friend is a famous economist—is that it does not necessarily have to be done through this Fund. There is no question of whether the doctors would get the money. They must get it from somewhere if the award has been given.

Mr. Gaitskell: We are in great difficulty, Sir William, because, as you pointed out a little while ago, it is so easy to get out of order and one cannot say much. If we were to oppose and defeat the Clause, it would certainly create awkwardness, delay and embarrassment, not only to the Government, but in the payment of the Pilkington award, which the doctors have been awaiting for some little time. I think that really the simplest way of dealing with this, my hon. Friend having raised some new points, is to ask the Financial Secretary, since the Leader of the House does not seem himself anxious to reply —I had hoped he was going to—if he will clear this matter up. Suppose this Clause were to be rejected by the Committee. Would that interfere with the payment of the Pilkington award to the doctors or would it not? That is the simple issue. If it would not interfere with it at all, then the second question arises, is it inflationary or is it not inflationary? I think that if we could have the views of the Financial Secretary on those two questions, and if he would deal with other points which have been raised, we might be able to get on faster.

Sir E. Boyle: I think it is perfectly clear, as the right hon. Gentleman has just implied, that if the Committee were to refuse to pass this Clause there would


be no legislative authority for the payment of the Pilkington award as passed in Committee of Supply and on Report last autumn, and it certainly would be interpreted in the world outside, if the Committee refused to pass this Clause, either that the Committee was hostile to this payment to the doctors or, alternatively, that the Committee was in favour of a very greatly swollen Civil Contingencies Fund. I am bound to say, speaking on the side of the Committee opposite to the right hon. Gentleman, that that would be a very devious conclusion for the Committee to arrive at.
In answer to some of the points which have been raised during the debate, my answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) is this. We are not on this Clause discussing the raising of money. We discussed the raising of money in Committee of Ways and Means. We are not discussing here the supply of money. We dealt with that in Committee of Supply. We are here dealing purely with the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund.
May I next apologise for any discourtesy in not dealing earlier with the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)? The reason why we always have "may" in a Consolidated Fund Bill and not "shall" is because it obvioulsy would be wrong to compel the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund if that did not prove to be necessary.
To go to the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who asked, What is the Consolidated Fund and where is it? In asking that he was, I thought, rather like somebody going to Oxford or Cambridge and being shown all the colleges in either Oxford or Cambridge and, having been shown all the colleges of the university, asking, "Where is the university?" He is, in other words, making what the philosophers call a category error in asking a question in that way.

Mr. Mitchison: What is the hon. Gentleman's answer to it?

Sir E. Boyle: My answer is that the Consolidated Fund is a fund out of which Supply is granted to Her Majesty. May

I say to him that the term applied to the Consolidated Fund does a definite and useful job in perfectly ordinary as well as Parliamentary speech, even though the Consolidated Fund is not one one can actually point to or hold in one's hand. I do not think can answer the hon. and learned Gentleman more precisely than that.

Mr. Mitchison: Since the hon. Gentleman has now assured us there is no Consolidated Fund, does he remember Samuel Butler in "Erewhon"—the passage about bank money? Is this Consolidated Fund full of bank money which would not buy anything—or what is it full of? Or does it not exist—the money?

Sir E. Boyle: It is not something you can actually point to. 'The Consolidated Fund is in other words the fund out of which Supply is made to Her Majesty. One cannot define the term or use the term "Consolidated Fund" more precisely than that.
We have been discussing this Clause now for a little over two hours. I have endeavoured to answer some of the points which are in order and which were raised from the benches opposite. In so far as I have not answered points, that is simply because, Sir William, you or your predecessor in the Chair ruled that they were not in order on this Clause. Now that I have answered the points I hope the Committee will agree to pass the Clause.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question, I think he knows very well, which the Leader of the Opposition asked. The hon. Gentleman has dodged it. Suppose we refuse to pass this Clause. Would the doctors and dentists not get that extra remuneration?
12.15 a.m.
The Financial Secretary said it might be interpreted outside that the Committee were hostile to the doctors and dentists getting this extra pay, and that then something else would be done. We got the impression that if we refused to pass this Clause the Government would raise the money in another way, perhaps a more preferable way. We want an answer to the question. Is it true that if we vote down this Clause, the doctors and dentists would still get the money?

Sir E. Boyle: What I said was that there would not be legislative authority for paying the doctors and dentists. This Bill is the legislative authority.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order. If the Financial Secretary is correct, do I understand that without this legislative authority payments have already been made to the doctors and are now being paid?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Frederic Harris: As it is getting rather late, and as I was on the telephone all day on Sunday answering calls, could we know that no hon. Members are holding up trains to Croydn tonight?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee will know that that was not a point of order for the Chair either.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Could I ask a rather more relevant question of the Financial Secretary? Is he sure he is right in arguing that if the Committee were not to pass the Clause the Government would have no legislative authority to make these payments? Suppose the Committee negatived the Clause but passed the next Clause. Would the position not then be that although payment could not be made out of the Consolidated Fund it could be made by borrowing on Treasury Bills, or some other way? If not, what is the purpose of the Clause?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The first Clause only deals with the issue of money out of the Consolilated Fund. The second Clause deals with the means whereby the process of issuing can be carried out. The second Clause by itself cannot be a substitute for the first. Unless we pass Clause 1 there will not be any legislative authority for the payment of these sums.

Mr. Swingler: Do I understand that some of this money has already been paid out without the legislative authority?

Sir E. Boyle: This happens every year, not just on this Bill but on the normal Consolidated Fund Bill. When this afternoon we passed the Committee stage of the Vote on Account, the Con-

solidated Fund Bill, which we shall be taking in a few weeks, gives legislative authority to that. It is the ordinary Supply procedure for the Bill to authorise what has already been done by the Government.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I do not understand what the Financial Secretary said. May I ask the Chair under what statutory authority were these payments made on 1st November, 1960, to doctors under this arrangement?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not for the Chair to explain what is said by another hon. Member.

Mr. Bruce Milan: I should like to go back to the statement the Financial Secretary made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). It was an extraordinary statement. He said that this Clause does not compel the Treasury to issue any money out of the Consolidated Fund. What the Clause says is that the Treasury "may" issue certain sums out of the Fund. The point my hon. Friend was making was whether in this context, on any Bill of this sort, the word "may" meant "shall." I am astounded that the Financial Secretary should tell us that "may" does not mean "shall." This is the kind of argument I have heard many times in many places, including the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Willis: Let us have a Scottish Minister in to explain it.

Mr. Ross: Where is the Lord Advocate?

Mr. Millan: The Lord Advocate has always explained to us that "may" in legislation means "shall". It seems to me that we require a great deal more explanation from the Financial Secretary on this point.
I thought that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) about the difference in wording between Clauses 1 and 2 were extraordinarily good and were treated to a very cursory reply from the Financial Secretary. I am surprised that my hon. Friend allowed the hon. Gentleman to get away with it. The hon. Gentleman answered only one of the points that my hon. Friend made.
The words in Clause 1 are that
The Treasury may issue
and so on, the sum of £42,877,600. The words in Clause 2 are
The Treasury may borrow…any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole forty-two million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds.
The Financial Secretary explained this discrepancy simply by saying that Clause 1 was the issue Clause and Clause 2 the borrowing Clause. That is not a sufficient explanation. The rubrics say that Clause 1 is the issue Clause and Clause 2 the borrowing Clause, and it does not help us to an understanding of the Clauses simply to remind us of that.
The hon. Gentleman says that money under Clause 2 might be borrowed in more than one bit. So that explains the use of the term "any sum or sums" in Clause 2, whereas in Clause 1 we have the simple, categorical statement "the sum". But the hon. Gentleman did not explain why the words "not exceeding" do not also appear in Clause 1. It is the more extraordinary since he now commits himself to saying that Clause 1 does not compel the Treasury to issue any money at all. Therefore we have the unusual position that Clause 1—

Mr. Willis: This point is very interesting and important. Arising out of the use of the word "may", by the end of the financial year £42 million will have been spent and that money must come from somewhere.

Mr. Milian: I held that "may" in Clause 1 means "shall" but the Financial Secretary has corrected that. On the hon. Gentleman's interpretation it seems all the more extraordinary that we should have this definite statement about "the sum" of £42,877,600. He has already said that we should not want, under the Clause, to compel the Treasury to issue any money out of the Consolidated Fund. That was precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking which had no reply from the Financial Secretary.
We are very much concerned to see that no more money is issued from the Consolidated Fund, or any other fund for that matter, than is absolutely necessary for the Government's purposes.

Why should the Government be so dogmatic about this? Why should they be so sure that in this Clause they commit themselves to this precise sum right down to the last hundred pounds? I should have thought that as a matter of practice it was impossible to get the sum down to the last hundred pounds. It might be £42,877,605 11s. 10d. or £42,877,601 10s. 4d. Why should we commit ourselves to this precise figure? This is what the Government have done and this is what the Financial Secretary has told us we are not compelled to do.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not discussing the amount of the sum.

Mr. Millan: No, Sir William. I am not discussing the amount of the sum. I am not discussing whether the sum is right or wrong, whether it is adequate or inadequate. As a matter of fact, it is the Government who are telling us that this is the precise sum. What I am arguing is that we should not have this precise sum at all.
We have in this Clause a precise sum about which we are now told there is a certain limitation. We are told that the Government may not issue any money at all. All I am arguing is a very simple point which my hon. Friend raised with considerable justification—a point to which he did not receive an answer. Why should not Clause 1 read "not exceeding in the whole £42,877,600"? We are very much concerned to ensure that we are not allowing the Treasury to issue too much money. We want to make sure that any money that the Government are going to spend is properly scrutinised. We need a good deal more explanation about the Clause.

Mr. Driberg: Perhaps I might say, Sir William, how very gladly some of us welcome your return to the Chair. I am also anxious to say how very grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) for pressing the Financial Secretary. I did not venture to interrupt further when the Financial Secretary was speaking because he is a very much greater expert on economics and finance than I am. I always feel a little diffident about making too much of a fool of myself by talking about these economic and financial mysteries—because they are mysteries to me. It is a great mystery to


me that this money of which we are apparently voting the application tonight has already been spent out of a fund which does not exist.
I am practically illiterate in these matters, but, as my hon. Friend says, I cannot see the difference in principle between issuing and borrowing. If the Treasury may issue the sum which is flatly set out in Clause 1, why is it necessary to put in:
any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole
when we come to borrowing in Clause 2? I cannot see why similar safeguarding words should not be included in Clause 1. After all, we do not want the Treasury to issue more than Her Majesty needs for this service.

Mr. Reynolds: Would my hon. Friend not think that as there is nothing in the Consolidated Fund, amounts can only be issued out of it which are borrowed, and that as there is a limit on the amount that may be borrowed, that automatically implies a limit on the amount that can be issued? Might not that be the explanation?

Mr. Driberg: It may well be, though my hon. Friend is going a little deep for me. He is another clever economist with whom I could never really keep up.
Seriously, we do not want to issue all the sum which is mentioned so flatly in Clause 1 if Her Majesty does not need it all for the service. I know that we cannot discuss expenditure when we are discussing this Bill, but you, Sir William, and your predecessor in the Chair—necessarily strict, as he was—nonetheless allowed the Financial Secretary to make a passing allusion to expenditure, because he said that the purpose of this sum was—he put it in what was perhaps rather a loose phrase—to meet the cost of the Pilkington Report or the Pilkington award. I take it that he meant "award". Even so, I take it that What he really meant was that it was to meet the cost of the increased remuneration to doctors and dentists arising out of the Pilkington award. The Pilkington award itself is contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration.
It is rather significant that at the beginning of this Blue Book there is a note saying:
The estimated gross total expenditure of the Commission is £36,991 Of this sum £3,403

represents the estimated cost of printing and publishing"—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I do not follow how that arises on the Question, "That the Clause stand part".

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Driberg: I was only mentioning it in passing, Sir William, because the Financial Secretary had been allowed—by your predecessor, I think—to say that the purpose of this money that the Treasury may issue was to meet the cost of the Pilkington award—

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend keeps referring to the Pilkington Committee having made an award. It may be that that is what the Financial Secretary said, but my hon. Friend should not accept what the Financial Secretary says. On the front cover is clearly printed:
Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration 1957–1960 Report Presented to Parliament…
What happened was that the Pilkington Committee was set up in order to make recommendations to Her Majesty's Government. It did so, and Her Majesty's Government then accepted the recommendations, but we really must get our technical parlance right. It would be quite wrong to construe that as an award in the sense of a Civil Service arbitration award or a court award. This is the responsibility of the Government. They have accepted the Pilkington Committee's recommendations and have paid moneys out of a Fund that does not exist to doctors who are in receipt of it.

Mr. Driberg: In other words, my hon. Friend is confirming that the Financial Secretary ought to have used the word which I thought I heard him use, but which he denies using—the word "Report". In other words, he should have said that it was to have met the cost of the Pilkington Report—although that, too, is putting it rather loosely, because my brief, simple point is that the cost of the Pilkington Report itself was only £36,000.
Moreover, there is a significant final paragraph to this note, because it says that a sum of over £1,000 has been recovered by the sale of the Minutes of Evidence. This report was published well over a year ago, Sir William, and in the intervening year thousands of copies of those Minutes of Evidence must have been sold. If so, and if the Financial


Secretary was allowed to tell us that the purpose of this application of the Fund is to meet the cost of the Pilkington Report, why cannot we assume—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I must try to carry out the rules of the House. Erskine May, in page 747, is quite definite:
On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed…
I must endeavour to carry out that rule in the Committee.

Mr. Driberg: I am always grateful for your guidance, Sir William, and I appreciate what you say. We have all been sincerely trying to avoid discussing or even mentioning expenditure because previously your predecessor seemed to think that a taboo word. But I did observe that the Financial Secretary had been allowed without interruption to say that the purpose of the sums which we are possibly applying tonight was to meet the cost of the Pilkington Report, and I would venture, very respectfully, to submit that if the Financial Secretary was allowed to say this—

The Deputy-Chairman: It may well be that the Financial Secretary said that, but as the hon. Member himself has now made the point, let us go off that point and back into order.

Mr. Driberg: Thank you for your salutary advice, Sir William. As you say, I have made the point about the last paragraph, which says that all this money has been recovered by the sale of the Minutes of Evidence. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary would be in order in telling us whether, if there have been substantial sales of these Minutes in the last year, he really needs a rather smaller sum than £42 million odd.

Mr. Mellish: I shall not detain the Committee for very long. I recognise that tomorrow it will be said that once again the Labour Party filibustered and kept up the House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: No.]—particularly by newspapers like the Evening Standard, which has now overtaken the Star and wiped it out. [HON. MEMBERS: It was the Evening News.]

Mr. Driberg: I hope my hon. Friend realises that he is making a very serious charge. If any newspaper were to say that, it would be reflecting very seriously on the Chair and would be guilty of contempt of Parliament.

Mr. Mellish: If my hon. Friend had read the leading article in tonight's Evening Standard he would be led to believe that, if the Committee were not debating this, the Opposition would be told that we were not acting like an opposition. Those were my opening remarks, Sir William, and I will pass on to other observations.
Like other hon. Members, I take pride in the fact that we can debate a Ruling given in 1913. We may get satisfaction out of the fact that we can now continue the debate. We should not forget the principle that something which happened X number of years ago does not mean that this Committee cannot rule on precedent. We have struck some sort of blow for backbenchers and the rights of the Committee itself. We can be proud.
I am obliged to the Financial Secretary, who tried to answer the points raised with his usual courtesy. As I see it, this debate is in order in the sense that we are now talking, in a normal Committee stage—although this is a restrictive Bill—on the Clause stand part, on a matter which, by a Ruling of the Chair, can be reasonably wide.
I listened with interest to the Financial Secretary. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), I know nothing of economics in that sense. I have never had much money and have never had to be worried about economics as such. But I am astounded at the procedure we must go through in putting out this sum of money.
I am associated with the National Health Service, and I wonder why it is that we have never done the same thing before. Where does this money come from? How is that millions of pounds awarded by the Whitley Council have never had to wait for Mr. Pilkington, whoever he may be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Harry."] Sir Harry Pilkington. We have never had to wait before. There have been negotiations. The Whitley Council machinery—

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will not go further on that point. To begin with, I do not think that it is covered by this Clause, and if it were it would be dealing with expenditure.

Mr. Mellish: I have explained my position. The Financial Secretary said it was necessary to introduce this Bill in order to apply measures contained in the Consolidated Fund. We heard the peculiar story about all this—that it does not exist and has no money in it anyway. This is, in fact, a piece of mechanism which enables this money to be paid.
The last point I want to make—I notice a transfer in the Chair, so I had better get on, Sir Gordon—is to wonder why it was necessary to have a Bill of this kind to implement a Ways and Means Resolution of some earlier date. Why was not the same mechanism used for other awards in the National Health Service? Similar awards were based on other means of getting the money.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going beyond the Clause.

Mr. Mellish: I was talking about the way in which hon. Members of this Committee, including yourself, Sir Gordon, had broken a precedent which I think should have been broken long ago. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked why we had not raised these questions before. Why did he not ask them when his party was in Opposition? The answer is that Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not have enough gumption to realise that these precedents can be broken and that we are prepared to break them.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is getting out of order.

Mr. Mellish: May we have an explanation of why it is necessary for this award to be dealt with in this way? Why were other awards not dealt with in this way? Surely that is a relevant point. If this procedure is to be adopted in this Service for an award that is made in consequence of a Report and we have to go through this sort of nonsense to find this money, I can only say that the business of the House will be held up and that it will create a great deal of confusion. I do not understand why

we have to go through this nonsensical procedure at this time of the night to pay this award.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that he would advise us to vote in support of the Clause. I normally agree with my right hon. Friend, and I realise that I might be misunderstood outside the House, but I respectfully reserve my rights in this matter because if we collectively say that this is what we will do on this occasion it will give the Patronage Secretary a feeling of confidence to which he has no right. For my part, I shall certainly call for a Division.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I revert to the question raised by two of my hon. Friends about "may" and "shall". I may have misunderstood the Financial Secretary, but I thought he said that the word "may" was used instead of "shall" because if "shall" had been there it would mean that the Treasury shall issue all money required, even though it may not be required, whereas if it was "may", it would read:
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom
any such money as it may require. That seems to imply that it would be possible for the Treasury to get this money from somewhere else.

Mr. Callaghan: Borrow it.

Mr. Bence: Not necessarily borrow it. We cannot discuss Clause 2 before we are discussing Clause 1. The Financial Secretary says that the word "may" is used because the Treasury may be able to get the money from somewhere other than the Consolidated Fund, but if it was "shall" the Treasury would have to ask for it. The assumption seems to be that the Treasury can get the money from somewhere else. Where else can the Treasury get the money from?
It seems implicit in what the Financial Secretary said that if we use the word "may" it may not be necessary to issue all this money. The assumption is that it will be obtained from somewhere else. Will it be obtained from the sale of a steel company, or something like that? Will the Treasury be able to get the money in that way, or from the profits from the sale of


Premium Bonds, or by running a raffle, or tombola, or bingo, or something like that? That was implicit in what the Financial Secretary said. He ought to explain why the word "shall" has not been used. He has used the word "may" because the Treasury may get the money from somewhere else. I should like to know how the Treasury can get the money without going to the Consolidated Fund.

Sir E. Boyle: I want to answer one or two points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) asked why this had not arisen before in matters relating to the Health Service. The answer is simple. All expenditure has to be authorised by means of Consolidated Fund Bills.
12.45 a.m.
We are dealing here—I will try to get the phrasing precise enough to satisfy the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg)—with the results of a Government decision following an important Report. As a result of the Government's decision, a major Supplementary Estimate had to be presented to the House last November. As I explained a little while ago, it was not possible to bear the cost from the Civil Contingencies Fund, which would not have been large enough to bear the extra strain. That situation has arisen before in the history of Parliament, not necessarily in connection with any particular kind of Estimate. It may happen in connection with any large Supplementary Estimate, and there is nothing unusual, therefore, about the procedure with which we are concerned tonight.

Mr. Mellish: This is a serious interruption. Why did not the other moneys which have been awarded to the National Health Service have to go through this Fund in the normal way?

Sir E. Boyle: Because in the normal course of events we should deal with Health Service expenditure through the Vote on Account. The only difference in this case is the pure accident that the Government's decision following on the Pilkington Report—

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. Has it not been ruled by you, Sir Gordon, that it is not competent for

the Committee to discuss expenditure arising out of the Clause? Is it permissible for the Financial Secretary on three successive occasions to discuss expenditure?

The Chairman: Order. I understand that the Financial Secretary was discussing machinery.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), but it is the normal custom in the House of Commons when an hon. Member asks a question and says that it is a serious interruption for the reply not to be interrupted by a point of order from his own side.
The Consolidated Fund Bill arises out of the accident that the necessary Supplementary Estimate had to be presented to the House of Commons last November. It is purely a matter of the time of the year. In the normal way Health Service expenditure is met by means of the Vote on account.

Mr. Mellish: Why does it have to be? Why can it not be amended so that we can have a further Supplementary Estimate and not go through all this procedure which has involved the Chair and everyone else in an impossible situation?

Sir E. Boyle: I think the hon. Gentleman is rather widening the point. There is nothing particularly unusual about the procedure we have this evening. It has arisen often in Parliament's history.
May I answer one or two other points raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) asked why we have this precise figure in the Bill. Supplementary Estimates presented to the House of Commons are normally rounded up to the nearest £100. That is a perfectly ordinary procedure.

The Chairman: I am afraid that we cannot discuss the amount.

Sir E. Boyle: I apologise for getting out of order, Sir Gordon. I thought it would have been in order because the exact sum is referred to in Clause 1. At any rate, I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point, so we need not pursue it further.
The other points raised concerned the word "issue". It is again the normal


procedure in Consolidated Fund Bills that Parliament authorises the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of a definite sum. There is a difference between authorising the issue of a definite sum and in a later Clause—I mention this now only to draw the contrast—authorising borrowing up to a limit. Most hon. Members should not find anything very peculiar about the concept of borrowing up to a limit.
Those are the points which have been raised. We have now been on the Clause for two hours and forty minutes. It is now approximately half an hour since the Leader of the Opposition made it plain that he for his part would not oppose the Clause. If we continue to discuss the Clause for a considerable time longer, the motives of the Committee may be misunderstood outside the House of Commons. I therefore suggest that we come to a fairly early decision on the Clause.

Mr. Driberg: The Financial Secretary said that he had dealt with the points raised and he has been most courteous in attempting to do so, but will he answer the points which I was allowed by a previous occupant of the Chair, Sir Gordon, to put about whether any money had come in from the sales of evidence?

The Chairman: The hon. Member was stopped from that by the Chair.

Mr. Mellish: The case has been clearly established tonight for a reconsideration of our procedure and the Leader of the House should reconsider it. There is no reason why we could not have had a further Supplementary Estimate for the money further required. This is nonsensical, out-of-place and antiquated procedure.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have found the discussion extremely educative and we all sympathise with you, Sir Gordon, in your difficulties about giving your Rulings. Previous to the debate, I studied with care the two pages of Erskine May in question, and I noticed the various inflexions of language which have been mentioned.
However, I voice again my view that it may be misunderstood if we continue to oppose for very much longer the granting of money—I do not wish to use the word "oppose"—if we continue to discuss the granting of money to doctors and

others on this orthodox British financial procedure. After all, this is orthodox British financial procedure—the Supplementary Estimate, the Votes on Ways and Means, the discussion in Committee of Supply in December, to which much reference has been made—and finally having this debate, what the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has called this extraordinary procedure of a special Consolidated Fund Bill.
Incidentally, it is a method which the Government were not keen on adopting because we knew that it was an extra hurdle for us, but we have had to adopt it because in the orthodox way, in view of the fact that it was not possible to pay this money out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, there was no other way to get the legislative authority to pay the doctors this money.
I feel certain that the Committee now desires to reach a decision on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." To answer in the spirit in which the Leader of the Opposition spoke—he spoke with great reason on this question—we want to decide our affairs even though there is opposition and there are enlivening and educative processes going on, which do us all good. I sincerely ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now to reach a decision on this Motion. The hour is comparatively late, but there is still time to discuss the later stages of the Bill. If we can do so in a reasonable time, that will be fairer to everybody concerned, because we have a heavy programme this week. I honestly feel that honour has been saved by the incursion made into the pages of Erskine May by hon. Members opposite. Honour has been saved and educative processes followed, and I sincerely feel that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should bring this discussion to an end so that we can make further progress within a reasonable time.

Mr. K. Robinson: Hon. and right hon. Members are most grateful to the Financial Secretary for the very patient explanations he has given to the points of substance which my hon. and right hon. Friends have made. We have had a valuable debate on this Clause and, as there are other Clauses and subsequent stages of the Bill, I think that we are now prepared to move to the next stage.
I was very glad to hear that the Leader of the House had found this an educative debate, although I thought that remark a little out of character with his earlier intervention when he suggested that he knew all about the details of our financial procedure and seemed to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I may know all about the financial procedure, but I have been educated about our Parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that it has been educative to all of us in respect of Parliamentary procedure, and in the light of the new decision which has been made in the debate. I think that we would now be happy to move on to Clause 2.

Mr. Swingler: To respond to the sweet reasonableness of the Leader of the House, we are glad to see him and to hear his new melody. He will know that to many back bench Members the appearance of the name "Consolidated Fund Bill" on the Order Paper spells out the rights of back benchers. In fact, when many hon. Members saw the name on the agenda, before they had examined the Bill, one of the first things they did was to go to Mr. Speaker and inform him that they wished to raise a number of administrative grievances. That was before they discovered certain limitations which have in the process of several hours tonight become more abundantly clear to them. We have, as the Leader of the House said, all been educated very much. We have also had an opportunity of exercising our back bench rights of discovering what we are doing. Some of us are still not quite sure that this is really the correct way of doing it, or whether, especially as the doctors and dentists are going to get the money anyway, we should not be entitled to say that we are going to do it in some other way. However, in view of the melodious way in which the Leader of the House has appealed to us, perhaps we can now pass on to the other Clauses.

Mr. Reynolds: I have listened for some two hours to this debate, and I am still not as completely enlightened as I should like to be about the purpose of

this Clause. We have heard the Leader of the House and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; and we now only have to hear the Parliamentary Secretary and we shall have heard the triumvirate on the Government Front Bench.
I have listened to the appeal of the Leader of the House that we should conclude the debate on this Clause. I may say that I have a great deal of sympathy with him in that respect, but I would also say that if he expects us to go on to discuss the rest of the complicated Clauses in this Bill in the small hours of the morning, we really cannot give proper consideration to them.

The Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that we are only discussing Clause 1 at the moment.

Mr. Reynolds: Yes, but the Leader of the House has asked that we should come to a conclusion on Clause 1 because we have spent some three hours discussing the Clause. I am expressing my sympathy with that request, Sir Gordon. Clause 1 is a particularly important Clause, but it cannot stand by itself. It must be followed, as you are aware, by a debate on the further Clauses. Otherwise Clause 1 itself has no particular meaning. I was simply expressing the hope that if we could bring the discussion on Clause 1 to a close we might perhaps proceed to the discussion of the other Clauses at some more reasonable hour than one o'clock in the morning. I hope that the attitude of the Leader of the House will be extended to enabling us to discuss the other important Clauses at some more reasonable hour.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(POWER FOR THE TREASURY TO BORROW.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: This Clause is, perhaps, slightly less important than Clause 1, but it is nevertheless a Clause of some importance because it gives the power to the Treasury to borrow sums up to the amount which it is to issue out of the Consolidated Fund under Clause 1. In view of what happened on Clause 1, Sir Gordon, it may be a relief


to you to know that I have no intention on this Clause to question the desirability of raising a loan in preference to issuing Treasury bills, nor do I intend to challenge in any way the conduct of the officials or of the Departments which will receive the Supply grants. I wish merely to elucidate certain points which arise on phrases in the Clause.
It is provided that the
Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise…
I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to explain what other methods would be open and why the issue of Treasury bills is the one method which is mentioned in the Clause.
We next come to an extraordinary feature of the Clause. As you reminded us earlier, Sir Gordon, this Bill arises originally from the Supplementary Estimates which were debated by the House on 5th December last. Those Supplementary Estimates were presented in two parts, the first being Vote 5, National Health Service, England and Wales, accounting for £37,665,000, the second being Vote 10, National Health Service, Scotland, accounting for £5 million. Why does the Treasury propose to borrow from the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland? This really seems most invidious. Since the Bank of England is, presumably, the appropriate institution from which to borrow for England and Wales, why should the Bank of Ireland be, by presumption, the bank from which the Treasury will borrow for meeting the costs of the National Health Service in Scotland?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with the further invidious feature that there is discrimination in favour of the Bank of Scotland as against the other four joint stock banks in Scotland. There is the National Bank of Scotland, and there is the Clydesdale and North of Scotland Bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, the British Linen Bank—

The Chairman: None of these banks is mentioned in the Clause.

Mr. Robinson: I appreciate that, Sir Gordon. I think my hon. Friend was trying to assist me.

Mr. Reynolds: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I appreciate that the other

banks are not mentioned, but the Clause provides that the Treasury may borrow "from any person", and "person" must surely include corporate bodies of one kind and another. Because the particular banks or institutions are not mentioned, may we not refer to them because they are covered by the word "person"?

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Chairman: Whether "persons" includes banks is a difficult point. I should not have thought that legally it did.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order. Surely, for the purposes of the Clause, "persons" must include financial institutions. It would not be the normal habit of the Treasury to borrow from private persons.

Mr. Callaghan: Old-age pensioners.

Mr. Jay: The Clause must have in mind other financial institutions than the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland.

The Chairman: It is a legal point on which I would not express an opinion.

Mr. Robinson: In the absence of any clear Ruling to the contrary, we must assume that "any person" includes bodies corporate. I recall that on a recent Bill, this very point cropped up and I was assured by a Minister on behalf of the Government that "person" included a body corporate.
I do not want, however, to be drawn too far from my main point of the curious incursion of the Bank of Ireland into the Clause. It is a bank which, I presume, is not even in the Commonwealth. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) that I used the phrase "Bank of Scotland" because that seemed to be the proper analogy with the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland, although I know that there are many banks in Scotland and that they are all banks of great distinction.

Mr. Manuel: The "bonnie banks o' Loch Lomon'."

Mr. Robinson: I must not be led into the byeways of Highland song. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will enlighted us about this curious provision.
Then, in line 25, we come to what, I can only think, is one of those printer's errors to which you, Sir Gordon, in the course of one of your earlier Rulings, made passing reference. It states that these banks
may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the said sums",
in the plural. The word "said" can only mean "aforesaid". Therefore, "sums" must refer to something which has gone before. Before this line in the Bill, however, I can find only a single sum. I think, therefore, that this must be a printer's error, which, if my supposition is correct, again justifies us, if justification were needed, in taking the opportunity to make a fairly close scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill, even at this hour of the morning. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will look into that. I do not see that it can possibly refer to any-think that comes afterwards. So far, the only sum is that mentioned in Clause 1, and that is in the singular.
The only other point that I wish to raise is in subsection (4). This is a piece of Parliamentary drafting which, to say the least, is infelicitous. It states:
shall form part of the said Consolidated Fund, and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available.
That means either something or nothing. It is unsual for a provision to be included in a Bill, particularly a Government Bill, which means nothing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no.''] It is peculiar. I do not want to get at odds with my hon. Friends about this. I am certainly not saying that it never happens. I only say that it is peculiar.

Mr. Diamond: It is undesirable.

Mr. Robinson: It is certainly undesirable. I hope that we can have elucidation of this odd phrase. What exactly does it mean? How could it be available in any other manner? Even having asked that question and answered it to my own satisfaction, it does not seem to get us much further. It is possible that some of my hon. Friends may have other points which worry them about the Clause, but I hope that the Financial Secretary in due course will be able to answer those which I have raised.

Mr. Swingler: Before we go further, may I ask the Financial Secretary to

reply immediately to my hon. Friend's question about a misprint in the Clause? Because of this, we might discuss the Clause for a long time under a misapprehension or on a misinterpretation. Therefore, I take it that the Financial Secretary can tell us immediately either that the Clause will be corrected, presumably on Report, or what are the sums in the plural to which the Clause refers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us now. Is this a misprint, as my hon. Friend said, or is it not? Could the hon. Gentleman reply?

Sir E. Boyle: I am making inquiries on that very point.

Mr. Diamond: On a point of order. Are you now ruling, Sir Gordon, that this is a misprint which you have to right, or not?

The Chairman: I have not ruled it is a misprint.

Mr. Driberg: Ought we perhaps to move to report Progress till the inquiries the Financial Secretary is making come to fruition?

The Chairman: Not at this stage.

Mr. Swingler: The Financial Secretary says he is making inquiries whether the Clause is printed correctly or not. Surely, the Committee is not to be in a position where we are obliged to pass something which may be incorrectly printed? In view of that situation, will you not, Sir Gordon, reconsider your Ruling and allow us for the moment to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, till at any rate we have information from the Treasury on this point?

The Chairman: I understand the inquiry is not into a misprint—

Hon. Members: Yes, it is.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order. I think there is no doubt that, as a matter of fact, the Financial Secretary said he would make inquiries whether there was a misprint in the Bill.

The Chairman: I understood he was making inquiry as to the word "sums".

Mr. Jay: I do not think there is any question about the fact that he is making inquiry whether there is a misprint. If this is so, and in the unfortunate eventuality of the Committee discussing a


Clause which is in error, is there no means within the procedure of the Committee by which we could adjourn our discussion, either by moving to report Progress or in some other way, in order that the Financial Secretary can have time to get the correct answer before the discussion continues?

Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order. I think, Sir Gordon, that may be you did not hear the exchange because you were speaking to the learned Clerk. However, I asked the Financial Secretary whether he could tell the Committee whether or not my hon. Friend was correct in supposing there was a misprint in the Clause, and, if not, if he could explain the question Which my hon. Friend raised. He replied that he could not answer and was having the matter inquired into. In these circumstances I should like, if I may, to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do so because the Committee is placed in a difficult position, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), in that we do not know—and have not been informed by the Treasury—the exact meaning of this Clause owing to the fact that the word "sums" in the plural does not seem to apply in so far as there is only one sum, a singular sum, mentioned in the Bill. On that ground I believe that we should not carry this discussion any further till we have from the Treasury an assurance that an Amendment will be made on Report to correct this misprint in the Bill or till we have an explanation from the Treasury spokesman.

Sir E. Boyle: I am on a point of order. I tried to make inquiries with as much expedition as possible on this point, and I think there is little doubt, comparing this print of the Bill with past Consolidated Fund Acts—I have made the comparison—that the hon. Member is correct, and that the word "sums", should read "sum". I ask your Ruling on this matter, Sir Gordon, but I think there is 'precedent in these circumstances for making the correction in the later print of the Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose

The Chairman: We cannot amend the Clause now that we are on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Jay: In this situation, I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, in view of the very unusual situation which has just arisen. We are now informed by the Financial Secretary, if I understood him aright, that the Bill we are discussing—indeed, the Clause we are discussing—contains a misprint.
1.15 a.m.
It is, therefore, surely impossible for us to give an affirmative vote to the Clause because no one is proposing that it should go through in this form. In addition, as I understood it, Mr. Chairman, you have already ruled that it is impossible to amend the Bill. We would like to be clear Whether that is your definitive ruling. I must confess, peculiar and abnormal though the proceedings may be, that I cannot recall any occasion on which the Committee found itself in the situation in which it was discussing a Clause which was not recommended to it by any hon. Member and on which it was not in order to move any Amendment.
Speaking on the spur of the moment, I cannot see any solution that can possibly be reached by continuing discussion of the Bill. It would clearly be better to report Progress, which means reporting Progress to Mr. Speaker who, I am sure, out of his wisdom, would be able to recommend to us a much more effective solution.
I see that the Leader of the House has returned. Perhaps I could explain the difficulty to him. We are discussing Clause 2. It has been revealed by the Financial Secretary that the Clause contains a printer's error. We have been advised by you, Mr. Chairman, that it is contrary to the rules of the House to make any amendment to this Bill. I am therefore suggesting to the Committee that the only possible solution is to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I oppose the Motion? It seems to me that it has been moved on a false premise. Surely we are concerned with ensuring that our meaning is clear. I have always understood that when a plural word is written into a Bill it includes the singular. It may include the plural, and it may not be apparent at once that there will be a plural at all. The fact remains that the singular is covered. It is open to


question whether "sums" is not the correct word to use, anyway. I understand that we have been told that in other Bills the word has been in the singular. That does not necessarily mean that it is wrong to write it in the plural in this Bill. While it would be wrong only to have the singular if we wanted to deal with plurals, in this instance we have the plural, although we only want to deal with the singular, which the plural covers. Even if the plural form of the word is unusual, it does not necessarily prevent the Bill from meaning what we want it to mean. For that reason, I suggest that the Motion is unnecessary.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have listened with attention to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I think that his argument falls down. First, he argues that the meaning is perfectly clear. I am not sure that that can be fully maintained. There have been Consolidated Fund Bills in which the plural "sums" is used because in earlier parts of those Bills quite distinct sums have been referred to. We sometimes have Consolidated Fund Bills which deal with supplementary estimates of one year and with the Vote on Account for the next year and provide a sum for each. In subsequent passages of Bills of that kind the word "sums" is used, referring to both those sums—one for one year and one for another.
The plural is used and, if we use it correctly, is only used where there are two or more distinct sums. If we were to use the plural in this Bill that might suggest that this is a very different kind of Consolidated Fund Bill from the kind it is. There are Consolidated Fund Bills in which the word "sums" would be in order, but this is not one of them. I suggest therefore that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely is wrong, first, in supposing, that the meaning is clear anyhow.
I should like to address my second argument particularly to the Leader of the House, because here we are on a matter of principle. Even if the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely were correct in supposing that the meaning is clear, surely when we are legislating we have to consider another point. Suppose that we said that in this Bill it is perfectly clear that although we have used the

plural when strictly it ought to have been the singular, nevertheless we all know what it means and the plural can be said to include the singular. That surely would raise the question of the interpretation of other Acts of Parliament where the use of the word in the plural could be taken to mean the singular and the singular only, because that is what "sums" will have to mean here. It will have to mean not "sums" but "sum."
Are we to accept the principle that in an Act of Parliament the plural can be understood to mean the singular, and the singular only? I am sure that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely and the Leader of the House will agree that there is a point of importance here and that we ought not to be content with a slovenly drafting of this kind. How are we to get out of the difficulty? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw the Bill."] We are at the moment on the Committee stage of the Bill. No notice has been given of any Amendment. It would be difficult to move Amendments in Committee.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Impossible.

Mr. Stewart: If the Bill cannot be amended in Committee, I presume that it could hardly be amended on Report. I confess that I do not expect that the Chair would be willing to accept a manuscript Amendment on Third Reading. Nor is there with a Bill of this character the hope of amending it in another place.
We are, therefore, in the position that there is an undoubted error in the Bill. Do we allow the Bill to go through with an error in it, which even if it does no injury to the meaning of this Bill establishes a new principle in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament? This is the principle that a plural word could be used when one wants to use not the singular or plural but the singular only. I do not think that without further thought we can push that principle into law. Yet if we go on with consideration of the Bill that is where we shall be driven to, because if we go on considering it tonight we cannot amend it.
Surely the right course in these circumstances would be for the Committee to report Progress. We have no wish to delay the doctors getting their money. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are getting it."] I understand, with respect, that they are


in process of getting some of it, but I believe—and the Financial Secretary will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—that if we do not pass the Bill and the Government go on paying out to the doctors what they ought to get, the box will be empty before the end of the financial year. That is what the Bill is for—to put money into the box a little faster than the very proper claims of the doctors are taking it out. There would be a danger not tomorrow but before the end of the financial year, if we did not get the Bill through in time, that the doctors would be done out of their money through the bungling of the persons responsible for the Bill.
We do not want the doctors to suffer in that manner. But they need not. The Government can either agree to report Progress or withdraw the Bill straightaway—in which case they can start briskly tomorrow on a properly drafted Bill, giving up proper explanations for the financial procedure, and we shall be quite willing to agree to the postponement of all other Government business until that is done. That would enable the doctors to get their money, the Government to get their Bill and ourselves to avoid the dangerous error of casually admitting a new principle about the meaning of words into Acts of Parliament without proper consideration.
It seems to me that every argument—that of justice 'to the doctor, that of propriety in the administration of Bills, and that of respect to the House—points to the conclusion that either the Bill should be withdrawn or we should accept the Motion which the Chair in its wisdom has allowed to be moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again".

Mr. Driberg: Many of us have lost confidence in Her Majesty's Government—

An Hon. Member: A long time ago.

Mr. Driberg: —but it becomes a very much more serious matter when anything happens which tends to make us lose confidence in Her Majesty's Stationery Office— [Interruption.]

Mr. Jay: I think that what my hon. Friend had in mind was that Her Majesty's Stationery Office, after all, acts

on the instructions of Her Majesty's Government. What we are in the presence of here is not a simple misprint by Her Majesty's Stationery Office but a blunder by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Driberg: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is something which brings me back to Her Majesty's Government with greater weight. If it is an error of drafting and not simply a misprint, then, of course, it is unthinkable that any responsible Minister would ask us to allow the Bill to proceed in this form, particularly as, as one gathers, there may be all sorts of procedural objections to amending a Bill of this kind. It might indeed be impossible to do so.
I think that the argument advanced by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) is without foundation. If he will look at the part of the Bill to which he was referring, he will find that there appear the words
credit of the said sums
and the next words are
any sum or sums".
His argument 'was that "sums," in the plural, includes the singular—that it could be either singular or plural, as one liked. If that were the case, it would not have been thought necessary for the next words to be
any sum or sums".
The Government would simply have repeated the plural, taking it to include the singular. Am I misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I do not think the hon. Member is misrepresenting me, but he is misrepresenting the facts. I think that "sums" happens to include the
any sum or sums
following it.

Mr. Driberg: No, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is reading the Bill aright.
In any case, we have now been told by the Financial Secretary that there is an error, apparently, in the drafting of the Bill, and I take it that either he or the Leader of the House or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will shortly tell us that the Government propose to accept this Motion to ask leave to report Progress. I do not see what else they can do.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Swingler: I take it that we shall not be asked by the Government or by the back benchers opposite to go ahead and deliberately force through something that is either a misprint or an error on the part of the Treasury. There may be some hon. Members opposite who do not care whether we put singulars or plurals in the Bill. They may argue that the plural includes the singular. I therefore presume that whenever—if ever—this Government come forward with a proposal to establish a national theatre those hon. Members will not mind whether the proposal is for national theatres. When we vote power to Her Majesty to have a standing army, I presume that they will not mind a vote for standing armies.
I think that the Leader of the House will appreciate that a serious matter has now been uncovered, and one quite frankly admitted by the Financial Secretary. In view of the Ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means, which was an extraordinarily rigid Ruling, to the effect that this Bill was unamendable, which Ruling would appear to cover both the Committee and Report stages, the only possible course left is for the Government to withdraw the Bill.
It is, apparently, impossible for us to overcome this difficulty, as could otherwise be done quite easily by a manuscript Amendment or an Amendment on Report—whenever that is to be taken—but the Chairman of Ways and Means has apparently ruled that that cannot be done—

Mr. Mellish: I understand that cannot be done because it means that the Bill must be completely reprinted, but I do not see why that should not be done. There are the people there to do it.

Mr. Swingler: It is quite obvious that the two things go together and that both of them point in the direction of the withdrawal of the Bill and its redrafting in the proper form. I therefore take it, Sir William, that we shall have a statement swiftly from the Leader of the House, who, I notice, has been inquiring very anxiously, in order to close these proceedings, because, of course, it means that the whole matter will have to be reconsidered when the new Bill is published.

Mr. Diamond: There are four serious and profound reasons for asking the

Leader of the House to agree to this present Motion. The first reason is that the advice which the Financial Secretary must seek in order to establish whether this word should be in the singular or in the plural is not available. That is obvious, without mentioning it too specifically. The kind of advice that the hon. Gentleman needs is not available, because the time is now twenty-five minutes past two o'clock and it is not the practice to keep Parliamentary draftsmen available to this hour.
The second reason is that the Financial Secretary, as he has made perfectly clear, does not know whether this should be in the singular or in the plural and, whether or not advice is available, we are in the difficult situation that the Government spokesman who is bringing in the Bill cannot be sure of the form that the words of an important Clause should take. He is unaware of that and, therefore, is unable to discharge his duty to the Committee.
Some say that the word should be "sums," while some say that it should be "sum." There may be good reasons for the singular, and there may be good reasons for the plural use—

Mr. K. Robinson: I think that it has eluded my hon. Friend that the Financial Secretary said that, clearly, according to precedent, the word should be in the singular.

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful, Sir William. I listened carefully, and those were the words used, which meant that the Financial Secretary was referring to a precedent he had and was not absolutely certain of what the content of the Bill should be. He said it would appear to be so. That is not a categorical assurance that the word should be either "sum" or "sums."
Those accustomed to dealing with these difficult problems know that there are often reasons, which escape one on First Reading of a clause, as to why words should appear in the plural or the singular, until one has had an explanation from those who do nothing but draft Clauses and have regard to precedents. Those are two very profound reasons why this Motion should be accepted.
The third reason is that, immediately this point came up, I asked your predecessor in the Chair whether he was ruling


that this was a printers' error which could be corrected by the Chair within its discretion. He ruled that this was not so. He said that of course he was not ruling that. I asked him that question because I anticipated the difficulty we might be in.
The fourth reason is that if it is indeed a mistake and can, as has now been established on the ruling of the Chair, only be corrected by an amendment moved by the Government, this could only be done at a later stage of the Bill. But according to the Order Paper, to our Whip, and to the Whip sent to the Tory Party, all stages of the Bill are proposed to be taken now. The Government are proposing to go through Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading. As you are aware, Sir, it is impossible to do that and to have an amendment. That is not within our rules.
For all those reasons, therefore, it is obvious that we cannot possibly proceed with the Bill. The Government have bungled it. It is unfortunate, but there it is. This has only been discovered because the Opposition has made a special point of raising this matter—against arduous difficulties—as, indeed, it should, in the acceptance of the Ruling given by the Chair that the whole of the Bill cannot be discussed at all, based on a precedent going back to 1913.
When one of my right hon. Friends asked if it was the position that we could vote for or against but not discuss it, the answer was—and I took down the words—"That is roughly the position." In spite of all these difficulties, the Opposition, determined to carry out its duty of improving the Bill, discovered a fundamental error, embarrassing to Members opposite. It is because of this that I appeal to the Leader of the House to get the Committee out of its embarrassment by accepting the Motion.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Perhaps I might elaborate a little on what I said earlier—

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Sir William. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already spoken on this Motion. Does that meant that one can speak twice?

The Deputy-Chairman: The House is in Committee and it is quite in order

for an hon. Member to speak more than once.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful for your Ruling, Sir William, because I have been watching with the greatest interest Members opposite intervening more than once in the same discussion, and I am glad you have allowed me to do the same.
The Opposition has made a mountain out of this minute molehill, and it keeps on reassuring us that it apparently does not wish to impede doctors from getting their pay; yet has done its best to drag the discussion out as long as possible.
I think that the Committee is genuinely under a delusion in moving to report Progress. I suggest that the way to read the subjection is as follows:
The Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole forty-two million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds and the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the said sums.
That is, in effect, what the subsection means, and it is customary drafting to do it in this way of putting the means whereby one does it and the power to do in front of what power one is in fact going to exercise. That is customary in Parliamentary drafting, and there is nothing unusual about that.
I come back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). I think that we would certainly have to have somewhere in the Clause "sum" or "sums." I agree with that. We must have that, and we have it. It is just a question of which comes first. I suggest that because we have it it is totally unnecessary to repeat it.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Sir William. Is it in order to discuss proposed amendments to this subsection? The hon. and gallant Gentleman is discussing the way in which the subsection should be amended.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Before you give your Ruling on that, Sir William, may I say that the pretext for this Motion to report Progress—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Surely any Motion has a pretext. There is nothing wrong in that. The pretext for this Motion to report Progress was because of the issue of the word "sums." That was the issue,


and I submit that there is nothing out of order in what I am trying to say.

The Deputy-Chairman: In reply to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I appreciate the position as stated by the hon. Member who has the Floor of the Committee. I think that he was speaking to the Motion to report Progress, and that was quite in order.

Mr. Diamond: On a point of order, Sir William. After hon. Members have been speaking with great seriousness about the difficulty of the Committee, and after I have advanced four profound reasons why the Motion should be accepted, is it in order to use the word "pretext" which challenges the sincerity and honour of every hon. Member who has spoken from this side of the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am bound to say that I hardly feel that we should be so thin-skinned as that.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: During the course of our proceedings I have been astounded at the ignorance of some hon. Gentlemen of the way we run the finances of this country through Parliament, but I never expected to hear the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) who has, after all, considerable experience and knowledge of the English language to make a suggestion as ludicrous as that he has just made. Certainly I had no malice aforethought in using that word. I thought that all legislation had a pretext of some sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reason."] Any Motion moved in this House has some pretext for it. I confess, though, that when hon. Gentlemen move Amendments late at night I sometimes wonder whether they have any pretext for doing so. On this issue I thought that in using the word "pretext" I was using a perfectly ordinary English word to mean what the dictionary meant it to mean. I intended to impute nothing to hon. Members opposite.
1.45 a.m.
To return to the question of "sum" or "sums", I was trying to deal with the point which the hon. Member for Barking raised with me. I agree that we must have the qualification in

the plural somewhere in the Clause. However, because we have it we do not need to go on repeating it. We can use the plural to include both. It so happens that the way the Clause has been drafted has involved the collective word being used before the separation. If it was customary for this sort of Clause to be worded the other way round, I would prefer that, but it is not customary. There is nothing unusual about using the collective word in advance of the separation of singular and plural.

Mr. Driberg: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that in some forms of drafting it may be desirable when there is repetition that the second repetition should be a shortened form of the first, but the full phrase is always put first and the abbreviated phrase is always put second if repetition becomes necessary. In a Bill concerned with the application of vast sums of money the greatest precision is necessary.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I have already said that if it was Parliamentary custom and customary Parliamentary draftsmanship to do it that way, it might be preferable from the ordinary layman's point of view, but it does not happen to be. The important thing is for us to ensure that both are included. Both are included, and I can see no reason whatever for wanting to put both in twice. I can see no reason for wanting to put the separation in twice. As long as it is there once, the plural will include the singular or the plural.

Mr. Ross: I am interested in the rather fanciful explanation given by the hon. Gentleman. He dealt very effectively, but not very convincingly, with "sums" or "sum". Will he now direct himself to the word before "sums", namely, "said"? Does he argue, or will he move an Amendment saying, that instead of saying "said" it shall say "going to be said"?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the sums may comprise a sum raised by Treasury Bills and a sum raised otherwise.

Mr. Ross: No.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: All that is in the Clause. As long as the plural and the singular are separated in the Clause, as they are, I can see no reason for


repeating it, and the use of the collective noun for the two seems to be perfectly sensible.

Mr. Gaitskell: I find it a little difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). The phrase in question runs as follows:
The Treasury may, issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, the sum of forty-two million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds.
This surely means that the Treasury may borrow on the credit "of the said sums"—in the plural. To what can that refer? It can refer only to something else in the Bill, presumably in Clause 1. Clause 1 contains no reference to "sums". There is reference to one sum only—the sum of £42,877,600. I do not think that anybody who examines this can doubt that a mistake has been made. A mistake has been made in the Bill. At the moment it would be rash to try to draw any precise conclusions as to the reasons for this error or peculiarity in the Bill, but the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said that it would be quite a different matter if this were not custom.
It so happens that I have with me the Appropriation Act, 1960, which incorporates—.I think that is the right word to use in this connection—the Consolidated Fund Act, and the words used there, again with a single payment, are:
The Treasury may borrow from any person, by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise, and the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the said sum—
in the singular. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. Member, who conceded that if what is in the Bill was not customary it would be wrong, can deny that he was wrong in his claim.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I said in my earlier intervention that I did not doubt for a moment that this drafting was different from the drafting which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I said that that did not necessarily make it wrong.

Mr. Gaitskell: The whole point is that the drafting is different. The plural has

been introduced in error, or for some peculiar reason, but it clearly was not introduced in the previous Measure which the word was used in the singular. That is the position.
In these circumstances, there are only two possible alternatives. Either this is an error which is sufficiently serious for the Bill to be withdrawn or, as the Government may possibly claim, and, knowing what they are like, I mention this to anticipate them, they will say that this is a minor printer's error which can be put right. It is very dangerous to alter a Bill on the ground that it contains a printer's error when it alters the sense. A printer's error which simply involves a mistake in spelling, a transposition of one letter with another, is one thing, but to put a plural when a singular should be there is a different matter and we cannot be treated in that way. I hope that we shall not have any suggestion of that kind from the Government.
I do not pretend to know, none of us can, how this error occurred. I very much doubt whether the Financial Secretary knows. He has been good enough to concede the mistake and we appreciate the fact that he did that straight away. If the Government cannot do better than this when introducing Bills, it is far better that they should come clean and withdraw the Bill. The House of Commons always appreciates it when mistakes are acknowledged and admitted by Members of the Government or hon. Members, and I have no doubt that that would be very much to their advantage.
I hope that they will not insist on continuing discussion of the Bill, for we should then find ourselves in an impossible position. It would be extraordinary if we did and it is all the more remarkable, after all the educative processes to which the Leader of the House referred earlier, that we should have had such an astonishing illustration of the operation of this educative process.
I do not profess to be an expert on procedure and I was not aware how closely the rules of the Committee confine us in discussing a Bill of this kind, but we were told in no uncertain way that it was completely impossible to amend the Bill in any way, and it is therefore impossible to proceed with the Bill as it now is.
In those circumstances, I cannot see how the Government can oppose the Motion, although if they announced the withdrawal of the Bill, it would not be necessary for us to proceed with it, and I imagine that there could then be put the Motion to adjourn the debate, or that to adjourn the House.

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Butler.

Mr. Jay: I think I could in a moment or two—

The Deputy-Chairman: I understood that it had been the wish of the Committee that I call the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), but I did in fact first call the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House.

Mr. Jay: I wish to be brief and to help to continue the educative process to which the Leader of the House referred. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) suggested that this Bill followed the customary drafting. I have here a precedent which I think shows conclusively that the word "sums" in this Clause is, in fact, an error, and I should like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to an exact parallel to this Bill in the form of the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act, 1951.
Section 1 of that Act, which is in a form similar to this, refers to a single sum—not sums—to be issued out of the consolidated fund, namely £88,421,490. The Act then goes on to Section 2, which is in a similar form to the present Clause that we are now discussing, and reads:
The Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise, and the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the said sum",
and then it goes on:
any sum or sums…
I think that since this is a precise parallel to the present Bill, since one sum is referred to in Section 1 and since Section 2 contains the words "said sum" and goes on to say "any sum or sums", taken together with the precedent to which my right hon. Friend has referred, that leaves no doubt that the present Clause which we are discussing has been drafted in error.

Mr. Reynolds: The precedent goes back a long way. I have the Consoli-

dated Fund Act, 1877, which also says "sum", in the singular and not in the plural.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It came as a complete surprise to me that there was the possibility of a printing error in Clause 2. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has referred to the mistake which he thinks has occurred, and on reading it at first sight I would rather not give an opinion tonight. I think it is too important for us to rush through the committee tonight.
It was our hope to get this business, which is important for payment to be made to the doctors and others. and to regularise our financial procedure on absolutely normal lines, which we shall have to do. But that does not mean that I should try to resolve this matter, which I think needs further consideration in two major aspects, before we make a further statement. It needs reconsideration, first in regard to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary which he made on the spur of the moment, and which I think may well be correct; but that needs further examination.
I have examined the immediately preceding Consolidated Fund Acts, and they contain the word "sums" in a similar Section, but they in fact relate to two sums. So it may be that such an error has crept into this Clause and has, so to speak, been lifted out of the previous Measure, and it may explain what has happened. I would say to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that this is not intentional. It is a pure mistake, and as such it should be corrected in the best possible way.
The first reservation I make is that this matter must be looked at on its merits by the Government and a further indication given to the House. The second point on which I wish to reserve the position, Sir William, refers to you in the Chair. I am informed that it has been the practice on previous occasions, with the approval of the Chair, for printing corrections to be made in the Bill after its passage through the House and before it goes to another place. I believe that to have been done in the past. I do not press you tonight, Sir William, for any ruling on this point. I think it would be quite unfair to the Chair for


the Government to ask the Chair to give a ruling on this matter tonight. If we find that there is a precedent for it, a ruling must be given from the Chair, not from me. That is the second aspect of the matter which I think needs proper consideration and for which I think time should be given to the Chair.
2.0 a.m.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) said that your immediate predecessor in the Chair, Sir William, had thought that this was not possible. I wish to reserve the position of the Chair to give a considered opinion on the matter, because this may well be the solution to the problem. If it is, so much the better.
I hope the Committee will realise that, in view of the need to have the matter looked at again by the experts to advise the Government, and in view of the need to give the Chair time for further consideration of the possibility of reprinting an error and give a ruling on the subject, this matter needs further consideration.

Mr. Diamond: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I am sure he will accept—he will find it confirmed in HANSARD—that I asked that precise question for this precise reason, and the Ruling of the Chair, certainly given immediately, was very clearly given in the negative.

Mr. Butler: I only ask that this should have the consideration of the Chair—

Mr. Diamond: Reconsideration.

Mr. Butler: —the reconsideration of the Chair, which I think is perfectly reasonable at this late hour of the night. In the circumstances, therefore, Sir William, I think we should accept the Motion. I do not think that we can, so to speak, force this Bill through when there is ambiguity on a point of this sort. I appeal to the Committee to realise that this Bill is seriously needed as a Measure to give legal authority for payments to doctors and others, and I hope that, whatever the outcome, hon. Members will give us their assistance at a later stage.
I repeat that I reserve those two matters for consideration by the Government and consideration by the Chair.

Mr. Driberg: With great respect to yourself, Sir William, and to the Leader

of the House, is it the function of the Leader of the House to reserve the position of the Chair? Is it not for the Chair to reserve its own position, so to speak? We have had a perfectly clear Ruling given—a clear and precise Ruling from your predecessor, as he always gives—and I am sure that all of us understood that there was no dubiety about it whatsoever. Now, the Leader of the House seems to be taking it upon himself —I say it with all respect to him—to go back on a Ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Butler: On a point of order, Sir William. The reason I phrased my remarks in relation to the Chair like that was that I did not want to put the point to you tonight. I wanted simply to give notice to you that, if the Chair would be willing to rule in the clear light of day and reason on what is the practice in this matter, I should be very glad to give you the opportunity. Of course, to put it properly in order, it would necessitate your acquiescence in my statement. That, I think, would put me right with the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). Otherwise, I would be entrenching on the privilege of the Chair to state its own rulings.

Mr. Milan: Is the Leader of the House enunciating a most unusual principle, that any ruling of the Chair given at this time of night is in some way or for some reason defective, whereas at another hour of the day it is not?

The Deputy-Chairman: I shall deal with that position as it arises. The fact is that my predecessor was in the Chair and gave a Ruling. It would be quite impossible that I should be invited to reverse the Ruling of my predecessor. I think it a much better plan that the Chair should have an opportunity to consider this matter carefully in detail and give a decision in due course. I accept the suggestion that has been made to the Chair.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order, Sir William. When Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, we are accustomed to his very sensible practice, if I may say so, of asking for time to consider a ruling before giving it. If some new matter is presented to him or some point of order is raised which has not been raised before, he asks for twenty-four hours.


He does not give a snap decision. On this occasion, it did not seem to us, as the Leader of the House suggested, that the Chairman of Ways and Means was in any way defective of reason when he gave his Ruling. I think the right hon. Gentleman suggested that a ruling should be given in the clear light of day and reason. The Chairman of Ways and Means seemed to be perfectly compos mentis to me. A clear Ruling having been given, it is an undesirable innovation for the Leader of the House some hours later to suggest that the Chair perhaps did not mean what it said.

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member is less than fair. I cannot, and will not, criticise the Ruling of my predecessor, which I did not hear.

Mr. Driberg: A jolly good Ruling.

The Deputy Chairman: A precedent is sometimes made of the Chair being granted time to consider something. As a result, the Committee can be more certain of a correct ruling, and I propose to accept the suggestion that the Ruling be reconsidered and a further Ruling given in due course if necessary.

Mr. Reynolds: Further to that point of order. We are in the position that the Government, due to their own bungling, are in rather a fix. Obviously, they want to get on with the Bill in the shortest way possible. If they can find some way of getting round the Ruling by your predecessor in the Chair, Sir William, it will be easier for them to get on with the Bill than to print it again and to start all over again from the beginning. It seems unfortunate—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I must protest that the phrase "getting round the Ruling" is not satisfactory.

Mr. Reynolds: Perhaps "getting round the Ruling" is not the right phrase, but I cannot think of a better description of the procedure that we are now following, when the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, has virtually refused to accept a Ruling of the Chair made seriously an hour or so ago, which, I thought, most Members willingly accepted. It seemed an obvious, sensible Ruling by the Chair. In effect, the Leader of the House has said that he is not prepared to accept

that Ruling and that it must be looked at again. Is that in order?

The Deputy Chairman: I certainly did not hear the Leader of the House say that he declined to accept the Ruling of the Chair—not at all. It was merely that the matter should be reconsidered in view of the fact that I, a different Chairman, am in the Chair. After consideration, I think that the Committee can be more certain of getting a correct Ruling. Surely, that is what the Committee wants.

Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order. I think you will agree, Sir William, that it is not normal in this Committee for the Chairman at a certain hour to give a firm Ruling and then, some two or three hours later, for a Member of the Committee to rise and apply to the Chairman for him to reconsider that Ruling on the ground that the situation has changed or that it would be convenient to him or to other Members of the Committee to do it. We appreciate the position of the Leader of the House, but suppose that an ordinary back bench Member of the Committee had got up and said "Well, now, we have had second thoughts on the Ruling of the Chairman three or four hours ago. Therefore, we would like to move to report Progress. We might like to reserve the position of the Chair on a number of matters"—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. It is my impression that earlier in the evening there were times when hon. Members were very hesitant in accepting Rulings from the Chair.

Mr. Parkin: Further to that point of order. What the Leader of the House appeared to be saying was that he would accept the proposition to report Progress with certain reservations. He made two which I will not mention now, but the third—I hope that it is not possible to accept the attitude of the Leader of the House—was that in some way we should agree to shorten the remaining stages of the Bill.
I have sat here patiently through the early part of the Committee stage waiting for the perfectly legitimate opportunity of a back bencher to raise, on the Third Reading of a Consolidated Fund Bill, such administrative matters as fall within the narrow compass of that


Bill, whatever it be. I hope that the Leader of the House is not asking back benchers to sacrifice any rights that they have in this respect simply because the Committee has got itself into a great tangle.

Mr. Reynolds: I feel a bit concerned about the position which appears to be arising. The Leader of the House indicated willingness to accept a Motion to report Progress but nevertheless wished to reserve the right to question a Ruling of the Chair given an hour or so ago. Would you, Sir William, advise the Committee what the position will be if we report Progress? Presumably, the Committee will sit again and continue consideration of the Clause at some date.

Mr. Callaghan: Not necessarily.

Mr. Reynolds: Would it be the intention of the Leader of the House to challenge the Ruling of the Chair given an hour or so ago with regard to whether or not this "s" could be crossed off from the end of the word by the action of the Chair?

The Deputy-Chairman: To deal with the question of sitting again: I understand that the Question, when it comes to me to put it, will be that I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. That surely means there will be a further debate.

Mr. Diamond: Further to that point of order. May I suggest that there may be some slight misunderstanding between you, Sir William, and the rest of us as to the words of the Leader of the House? The Leader of the House did at my prompting alter his words to inviting the Chair to give reconsideration. You have by your recent intervention indicated that you meant reconsideration by you. I certainly understood it to mean reconsideration by the Chair. And the Chair has given its Ruling.
May I say to you, with great respect, that we have recently come through a very difficult time, and here we are already approaching a situation in which the most authoritative—perhaps with one exception the most authoritative—person on the Government side is inviting the Chair to reconsider its decision? This would immediately be regarded as an attempt by the Government to get at the Chair, which we have

only recently discussed. Sir William, I am addressing this point to you because you said, in your willingness that you indicated to us, that you were willing in some way or another that this reconsideration should be given. I am sure, Sir William, it would be most unfortunate if, through your understanding it to be reconsideration by you, the rest of us understanding it to be reconsideration by the Chair, we should, in some sense, by passing this Motion now, be agreeing to a course of conduct which many of us conceive would lead to very considerable difficulty indeed.

Mr. Robinson: I would just ask the Leader of the House to clarify one point which he made, I think, more than once in his remarks. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government needed this Bill in order that the doctors' pay award could be implemented or in order that the doctors could be paid—

Mr. R. A. Butler: With authority.

Mr. Robinson: I am glad to have that clarification. The doctors have, most of them, been paid, certainly their current increased salaries, most of their arrears. Authority has been given by the Minister of Health to local executive councils and hospital authorities. So we should not be holding up their pay?

Mr. Butler: That is true. Following upon the submission of the Estimate I consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. It is usual in our country to make advance payment. It is also usual to follow through and make the final legal authority with the approval of the House.
As to what we are doing in regard to the Chair, I would be the last person to wish to put the Chair in any embarrassment, and I place myself entirely in the hands of the Chair. I myself did tot hear that particular Ruling and whether that meant the whole question of reprinting. I think it is quite reasonable to put ourselves in the hands of the Chair —that is the expression I should like to use—and ask for a considered view to be given whether there is possibility of correcting the printing error in the late stages of the Bill. That is all I asked. I do not think it is unreasonable—

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. Is not the Leader of the House tending to


mislead the Committee? He is saying a "printing error" though this is clearly an error of draftsmanship. There is a distinct difference. When the Leader of the House says he wants to reserve the position of the Chair, I say that is out of his competence. No one here can reserve the position of the Chair on any previous ruling.

Mr. Butler: I accept both the hon. Gentleman's points. I did refer to this as a drafting mistake. In regard to the Chair, I must leave it entirely to the discretion of the Chair whether they will care to clear this up after a suitable interval of thought. It may be that the Ruling I did not hear is followed through. If you, Sir William, care not to accept my suggestion, I will understand. I am entirely in the hands of the Chair. A considered statement, I think, would be perfectly reasonable.
In the case of the Government, I simply want time to consider the statement made immediately by the Financial Secretary, with absolute rectitude, that he thought a mistake had been made. Prima facie, I think a mistake has been made. I hope in that spirit that the Committee will accept the Motion.

Mr. Gaitskell: In spite of criticisms offered about earlier remarks by the right hon. Gentleman, it would be ungracious not to express satisfaction that he has accepted the Motion. He made two reservations in accepting it—although perhaps "reservations" is not the word he had in mind because the Motion is

accepted. He meant to make two comments. He wanted to be sure that there had been a mistake, and that is reasonable. It will be necessary for him to make sure. I have little doubt that he will find that there is a mistake.
Then he wanted to raise this question of the decision of the Chair that has been touched on by my hon. Friends. Perhaps what the Leader of the House meant was that he wished to look at HANSARD tomorrow or the next day to be sure what was said, and if he disagreed with the Chair it would be open to the Government to put down a Motion criticising the words of the Chair. It would not be in order to ask the Chair to rule again, but a critical Motion is sometimes put down, and the Government are free to do it, as well as the Opposition.
The Leader of the House also made a comment about the later stages of the Bill. We appreciate the importance of the Bill. It is because of this that we have scrutinised it so carefully. I think the right hon. Gentleman owes us a debt of gratitude. Where would we have been if my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) had not discovered this mistake? Does this not abundantly prove the value of our serious discussion? Even in the late, or early, hours we can uncover the mistakes of the Government. The success of all of us in doing this will encourage us to further efforts in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — SHERIFFS' PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the pensions attributable to the office of sheriff and salaried sheriff-substitute, to regulate the age of retirement from such offices, and to regulate the time at which payment may be made of those pensions and of the salaries attaching to the said offices, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of

(i) any pension payable under that Act; and
(ii) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which under section twenty-five of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950, are to be so paid;

(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in administrative expenses incurred by any Government department attributable to the passing of the said Act.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

2.19 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: Are we not to have a Ministerial statement about this? Surely we are going to have a statement from the Treasury?

Mr. George Lawson: We have no copies of the Order on the Table. None is available to hon. Members.

Mr. Swingler: Are there no Ministers present capable of making a statement on behalf of Scotland, or have they all gone to bed?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): Perhaps I might be able to assist the hon. Member for Newcastle-under Lyme (Mr. Swingler). We appreciate his interest in Scottish affairs. The previous stage of the Bill was discussed very fully and interestingly by Scottish Members.
I would say for the information of English Members who did not assist in those deliberations that this is a Measure which does not involve any large financial commitment. The total sum is estimated at £5,000 or £6,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sum or sums?"] The total amount of money involved—I must be extremely careful in my

phraseology—is about £5,000 or £6,000 The Measure has no doubt commended itself to Scottish Members in that it improves in various respects the position of Scottish sheriffs and sheriff substitutes and envisages steps which will remove certain difficulties which they have met in the past. It will give more favourable and satisfactory conditions of service to this very valuable section of the Scottish legal profession in future. I hope that the House will continue to feel, as it has indicated in the past, that this is a meritorious Measure for the efficient conduct of Scottish legal affairs and that it will accept the Money Resolution on Report.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will remember, of course, that we discussed this matter previously at about a quarter to eight in the morning. Much of the discussion was very hurried and we were not able to get from the hon. Gentleman a full reply to the many points raised. There were also many points which were not raised at all owing to limitations of time. Therefore, he will not be surprised if we try now to elicit further information from him.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that very pertinent questions were asked, to which we ought to have some answer, about whether or no it would be in order to discuss certain things within the terms of the Money Resolution. We asked whether its terms were sufficiently wide to enable us to discuss important provisions in the Bill affecting pensions and salaries and the ability to bring sheriff substitutes into line with sheriffs in proportion of salary and into line with recorders and county court judges in England.
We should like to know whether the provisions governing a qualifying period of five years can be wiped out under the Money Resolution. This is important. There is no qualifying period for any other judge, but sheriff substitutes have to undergo such a period. It is possible that we might wish to amend that provision or seek to discuss it. We therefore want to make sure that the Money Resolution will enable us to do so. There is also the question of the time to be served by the sheriff substitutes before they qualify for a pension equal to 50 per cent. of their salaries


Before we finally leave this we ought to have some definite assurances. We were pushed for time at a quarter to eight last Thursday morning, and the hon. Gentleman knows that he had to leap up to the Despatch Box and leap back again. We were not quite sure whether or not these points were answered and whether or not they were covered by the Resolution. I and my hon. Friends who will be in the Standing Committee on Thursday to discuss the Bill would like some assurances.

Mr. Bruce Milian: The Joint Under-Secretary said that the sum of money involved would be quite small. That is one of the things that we were arguing about. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), there is a great deal of discrepancy between the sums of money to be paid to sheriffs and sheriff-substitutes and those paid to English county court judges, who, I understand, do equivalent work on a limited scale in that they deal only with civil cases, whereas sheriffs and sheriff-substitutes deal not only with civil cases but also with criminal cases. I should like further information on this point. Exactly how much money is involved in the Resolution, and are we providing sufficient money?
Also, the Joint Under-Secretary, particularly in view of the discussions that we had a little earlier, might say something about the fact that the money which we are voting is to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. We ought to have some explanation about that. If I understood our earlier discussions aright, it was not necessary to pay this sort of sum out of the Consolidated Fund because there should be sufficient money in the Civil Contingencies Fund to pay it. I can quite appreciate that there would not have been sufficient money in the Civil Contingencies Fund to pay about £42 million, but are we to understand that the Civil Contingencies Fund has now reached such a low level that we cannot pay out of it something like the £6,000 or £7,000 required under this Resolution? We want a little more explanation about this.
It is an extraordinary thing that the Joint Under-Secretary failed even to

mention the Consolidated Fund when he knows the very considerable interest that there is in it in all parts of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am not very clear how the Joint Under-Secretary could have said anything about the Consolidated Fund on this Money Resolution.

Mr. Milan: I thought from the remarks of the Joint Under-Secretary before you occupied the Chair, Mr. Speaker, that this sort of thing would have been in order. If I might just make a final point—

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order to ask—you did not, of course, hear the previous discussion—whether there is any money in the Consolidated Fund to pay these pensions? We have been told tonight that there is nothing in the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Speaker: I do not follow that—not in the context of this Money Resolution.

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Money Resolution proposes to pay out of the Consolidated Fund any pensions payable under the Bill when it becomes an Act.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this evening the Financial Secretary to the Treasury pointed out to the Committee that we were dealing with the abstract, that in front of him he had an invisible box in which was an invisible sum of money that had been paid out to the doctors and dentists, but the Measure that he was proceeding to put to the House—

Mr. Speaker: I am so sorry. I think that this must have been during proceedings in Committee of the whole House, about which the hon. Member is not at liberty to tell me.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Oswald: With every respect, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get clarification so that you may be able to guide us on this Measure.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must insist on the rules. What the hon. Member cannot do is to quote what has gone on in Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Oswald: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I regret breaking up this happy conversation, but two heads are better than one—

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is addressing me, and at present, as far as I know, I have only one head.

Mr. MacMillan: I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have a head that is quite equal to any two heads on the benches opposite. However, I would claim the attention of one-fifth of the Scottish Office for just a minute. Could not the Joint Under-Secretary give some explanation on this point? So far, he has simply thrown this Money Resolution at us—

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry, but that can hardly be a point of order for me. I hope that hon. Members will bear the point in mind.

Mr. MacMillan: I am not raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but might I, through you, ask the Under-Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: No, it would not be a point of order for me. Mr. Milian.

Mr. Millan: The Resolution we are discussing mentions the Consolidated Fund, and I should have thought that it would be in order to mention that in this context—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will reflect the matter for a moment, it is very difficult to argue that everything could be said about the Consolidated Fund on this Money Resolution, which is concerned with a specific issue out of it.

Mr. Milian: What I was attempting to argue was that, at the very least, the Under-Secretary might have said something about the payment of this money out of the Consolidated Fund, since there seemed to be amongst members of the Committee—and I do not want to mention our earlier discussion—some feeling of confusion about the actual working and operation of the Consolidated Fund. It was with that uncertainty of so many of us in mind that I attempted to get the Under-Secretary to say—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am afraid it is quite plain that what we are concerned with is this particular issue out of it, and not other working of it—much as I would like to hear the hon. Member's exposition.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I quite follow your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. It would be most improper to discuss all aspects of the Consolidated Fund on this Resolution, but I submit that the Money Resolution does provide that certain pensions and other payments are to be made out of the Consolidated Fund. In view of that, surely my hon. Friends will be justified in raising what are, I think, two important questions that arise. First, is there a Consolidated Fund? Secondly, if there is, is there any money in it? Unless they can be satisfied on those two points, this Money Resolution really would not make sense.

Mr. Speaker: In my view, they would not be allowed to argue either on this Money Resolution. The question is whether or no—

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Please—I am still on my feet. The question is whether this issue shall take place for the amounts and purposes there described. I do not think that in receiving the Report of the Committee we are concerned with the existence of means in the Consolidated Fund, or the existence of the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order. If, on the matter of pension, the Committee that is reporting to us has thought it expedient that we should authorise the issue from the Consolidated Fund of these pensions, not realising that this Fund does not have any real existence and has no money in it, and forgetting that, on other occasions —and I will not specify—it has been necessary to make provision in the same Measure for borrowing certain moneys from any person or from the Bank of England or from the Bank of Ireland or something like that—supposing the Committee, under this misapprehension, is giving us a recommendation that we do not care to accept, surely one would be in order in arguing against it?

Mr. Speaker: I can hardly think, as this discussion proceeds on the assumption that there is a Consolidated Fund, that this House, in receiving this Report, may not discuss the issue out of it without being satisfied of its existence.

Mr. Millan: If I might return to my original point, Mr. Speaker, I think, with respect, that I was not in any way calling into question the existence of the Fund. I have no doubt that there is such a thing. I was trying to elucidate from the Joint Under-Secretary of State whether the Consolidated Fund was the appropriate fund for paying these sums of money out of—whether or not we should be using the Fund for this purpose. I was saying to him, through you, that I wondered why we should be using the Fund when, presumably, there is sufficient money in the Civil Contingencies Fund—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The difficulty about that is that to discuss an alternative method of effecting what would be effected by this issue would be out of order on this Question.

Mr. Millan: Then I leave that paint and come to another. The Joint Under-Secretary of State gave us a very brief explanation. Apparently he had not expected to have to give an explanation. I hope that this brief discussion will give him the opportunity of getting more information to pass on to us.
Assuming that this money is to come from the Consolidated Fund, and apart from the argument on whether it should or not, there is the question raised by (a) (ii) which says:
any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which under section twenty-five of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950, are to be so paid;
That is not clear. Could the Joint Under-Secretary of State say something about that Act and its relevance?

Mr. William Ross: I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for addressing himself to the points raised. He cannot quarrel that we are again raising this matter, in view of the fact that it was seven or eight o'clock in the morning that we raised it last week at the end of a long debate.
I, too, would like information about the source from which this money is to

be paid and about how much is to be paid. In respect of the Consolidated Fund, of which we have been privileged to get some strange information from the Treasury, there are to be paid sums under (a) (i) and (a) (ii). How much is it anticipated will be issued under these headings?
We are asked to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament. How is it proposed to do this? What moneys are involved, as opposed to the Consolidated Fund? Secondly, the Resolution says
…of any increase in administrative expenses incurred by any Government department attributable to the passing of the said Act.
What increase is expected? Surely the hon. Gentleman has some idea of how much this will cost. Can the hon. Gentleman say which Government Department, or Departments, will spend the money?
Going back to the body of the Resolution, it says:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the pensions attributable to the office of sheriff"—
I would have been happy if it had been left there, but it goes on—
and salaried sheriff-substitute…
When we specify it in that way in an Act of Parliament we not only specify, but limit. We intend to limit what is in the Act of Parliament to what is here specified.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Ross: I was addressing myself to the point that there are specified here the offices of sheriff and salaried sheriff-substitute. We are there specifying the intent to limit the offices to which this Resolution will apply. There are many different types of sheriff. Indeed, the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill refers not to the offices of sheriff and salaried sheriff-substitute, but to whole-time sheriffs and salaried sheriffs-substitute. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us what will be the effect of this difference.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. but I think that in


replying the Minister will have some difficulty in referring to the Financial Memorandum.

Mr. Ross: I am not asking the Minister to refer to the Financial Memorandum.

Mr. Speaker: I beg pardon. I meant to say the Explanatory Memorandum.

Mr. Ross: I am asking the Minister to explain the effect of the use of the term "office of sheriff", rather than the "office of whole-time sheriff." He might well have had "office of part-time sheriff" or "office of principal sheriff", all of which are terms in relation to the type of sheriff, apart from the other well-known term of sheriff-substitute.
The point is that sheriff-substitute is here while the others are not. I have not heard that it is the intention of the Government to apply the Bill to part-time sheriffs or to honorary sheriffs. I think that we need an explanation of the effect of the term "office of sheriff". I invite the Minister to give us the answer that we hope he will give in reply to my hon. Friend.
As no specific sum is mentioned and we have only the tentative sum of £6,000 mentioned by the Minister there is nothing here which enables us to address ourselves to what we think is putting right certain wrongs which might be passed on to certain sheriffs-substitute and to deal with the question of age and time for payment.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Brooman-White: May I, by leave, address the House again to give a fuller explanation of some points to which hon. Members have returned from our earlier discussions? First, in our previous discussions, owing to considerations of time, I abbreviated the points I made to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who was concerned mainly about what would be in order on the Committee stage. I notice from the Amendments already on the Order Paper that he has found, and I gather that the Clerks have accepted, points which should set his mind at rest that what I said to him earlier is substantially correct. The words I then used in meeting the point about the qualifying period, the nomenclature of "sheriff" and "sheriff-substitute", and other points were:

…subject to the views of the Chair, it is the intention…that Amendments on these points should be in order.

Mr. Willis: Subject to the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Brooman-White: I will further refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory. I said:
I understand, subject to the views of the Chair, that it is the intention of the Resolution that Amendments on these points should be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 1717.]
On this point, to which the hon. Gentleman attached importance, Amendments are already on the Order Paper. This was subject to the views of the Chair, but it was the understanding that the Financial Resolution should be wide enough to enable these points to be taken in Committee, subject to the Resolution. Clearly it was not for me to answer for the Chair, but it was the intention of the Government that it should be so.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) asked me in particular about the reference in the Financial Resolution to the 1950 Act. The explanation of that is that the provisions we are taking will not only adjust the pensions of the sheriffs themselves, but will also adjust the lump sum payments and moneys payable to their widows under the provisions of the 1950 Act. As these calculations are based on a proportion of the payment paid to the sheriffs or sheriffs-substitute, it is necessary to take extra powers to meet that additional need.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked in particular about the other moneys referred to in paragraph (b). These other moneys are mentioned simply to cover what should be very small expenditure indeed but which would not be, from the point of view of accountability, embraced in the other part of the Resolution dealing with any administrative expense necessary to meet matters such as the more frequent payment provided for in the Bill—for example, where for the convenience of sheriffs instead of quarterly payments more rapid payments are to be made. This might involve minor clerical additions and minor administrative expenditure. If this were not in the Financial Resolution, we should not have the powers to meet that very small additional expenditure.

Mr. Ross: The Joint Under-Secretary seems to be referring to the words
regulate the time at which payment may be made of those pensions…
He is telling us that it means that certain expenses will be involved in paying these officers at other periods than the quarterly periods at which they have previously been paid. Because that would involve some expense, it has to be in the Financial Resolution. We all follow that, but if that is what the Financial Resolution wants to mean why does it not say so? In view of our experience earlier this evening, it is hardly necessary at this stage to labour the importance of the accurate use of words. If the Money Resolution was required to say what the Minister says it means, it should clearly say:
…to regulate the periods at which payments may be made".
To decide to pay somebody monthly instead of quarterly is not a question of the time at which payment is made to him. It is a question of the periods over which payment is made to him. The two phrases are quite distinct in English and when drafting Money Resolutions, Ministers ought to get them into decent English.

Mr. Brooman-White: I do not think that the Money Resolution is at fault. I think that I am at fault in not explaining sufficiently lucidly. The reference in the Money Resolution is not directly to the more frequent payment, but simply to the possible administrative effect of that more frequent payment, which could involve some small additional expense.
The second point raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock was answered in the latter part of his own speech. He was quite correct in what he assumed. The specific reference to sheriff and sheriff-substitute is phrased in that way to exclude any question of payment to a part-time sheriff, as the hon. Member pointed out, who is enabled to engage in legal practice on his own account. He is not embraced by the terms of the Money Resolution, and that is the reason for that phraseology.
I hope that those further explanations will meet the points which hon. Members have raised.

Mr. Ross: If that had been so, the words "whole-time sheriff" would have

been added. Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the comments about paragraphs i (a) and i (b)?

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: No doubt in view of the remarks made at the awkward hour when we discussed the subject last week and the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) on the principle, the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has caused some speculation. I believe that we were discussing the principle at the awkward hour of 8 a.m. and I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary would be good enough to dilate further upon this matter of the periodicity of payments, because this matter is beginning to cause alarm and it is important to allay those fears.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I am not doing the hon. Member an injustice, but I do not see how the question of periodicity arises in this context.

Dr. Mabon: I was merely echoing what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham about the precise phraseology and to which the Under-Secretary attempted to reply but with which he did not deal adequately, particularly in view of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton who argued the same point when we discussed referring the Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee and then to the Scottish Standing Committee. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham can allay your anxieties, Mr. Speaker, about whether the matter is in order, perhaps in better terms than mine.

Mr. M. Stewart: The question of periodicity arises because the Money Resolution proposes, among other things, to pay certain officials more frequently. That mere fact will result in a small amount of public expenditure and for that reason it is necessary to refer in the Money Resolution to the fact that they are to be paid more frequently. That the Money Resolution tries to do. But what we were worried about was that although it tries to do it, it does it very clumsily. It does it in the phrase:
to regulate the time at which payment may be made.
What it really means is "to regulate the periods at which or over which that


payment may be made." The fact that it says
the time at which payment may be made
as I understand, caused some alarm and led officials concerned to suppose that they might be going to be paid at extremely inconvenient times.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should be doing wrong if I allowed the hon. Member to make a speech on what was really an intervention for my assistance on a point of order. I am greatly obliged to him.

Dr. Mabon: If my previous remark was in order I am glad to he absolved of any charge that I was disorderly. May I press on the Joint UnderSecretary—I think he has ten minutes—the need to make this point clear.
I am only sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) is not here to make again the points that he made on the occasion of our last discussion. I understand that he is not feeling very well and we appreciate his reason for not being here at this moment. He made some points which were not answered by the Secretary of State on that former occasion. We had hoped that in the discussion of the Money Resolution we would get an answer on this point relating to this phraseology, which, since it was considered in the Scottish Grand Committee, has echoed back into this Chamber.
I press on the Joint Under-Secretary to give us a clearer answer as to what is intended. If there is a misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Hamilton I hope it will be said so specifically. But there are certain agitated persons in distant parts who would find it extremely difficult to lift up these moneys if the periods stated in the context of this Money Resolution were farcical. I have no doubt that this is not the intention. Nevertheless, the point has been raised and I think warrants an answer from the Under-Secretary at this stage rather than that the Committee should be cumbered with rather doubtful arguments at a later stage. It is possible that the Government may find themselves strung up by their own Money Resolution to such an extent that we shall have to start all over again on the Sheriffs' Pensions Bill, and the sheriffs

will have to wait patiently for the Government to do something to bring in this long overdue and much needed Measure.
It would be a pity to spoil it just for the ha'pennyworth of tar which I am asking the Under-Secretary to give in the form of an explanation about the phraseology in the Resolution relating to the time at which payment may be made, and whether it might not be extended.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. Bence: We ought to have an answer to this question. There is a danger, when legislation is passed through this House, of not recognising the fact that in Scotland we have vast remote areas, and when the Treasury or the Department in Edinburgh take unto themselves the position of regulating the time for payment—and I presume that the place will be regulated as well—bureaucracy may fix a time and place that may be suitable for some sheriffs but not suitable for others. That may well be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot see how the Money Resolution governs that. No doubt the Bill will.

Mr. Bence: The Money Resolution says:
…for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the pensions attributable to the office of sheriff and salaried sheriff-substitute, to regulate the age of retirement from such offices…

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member, on reflection, will realise that that is a reference to the fact that the Act regulates it, and not the Money Resolution that we are now discussing.

Mr. Bence: I abide by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, of course, but the point arises out of paragraph (b) and the great distances in Scotland which may lead to considerable expense if an unsuitable time is fixed. The expense to be incurred by the Government Department may be considerably increased in relation to a sheriff from the Island of Mull, the Hebrides or the Shetlands. The expression "regulating the time" is quite unsuitable, and I am sure that many sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute from Perth and northwards to Orkney and Shetland will be very concerned


about the costs which both the Department and they may incur in the collecting of their pension.

Mr. Brooman-White: If I may have the permission of the Committee to speak yet again, I will try to reply to the point which has been raised. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and his hon. Friends have all referred to what was said about time by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) in our earlier discussions. I assure the Committee that we have to date received no indication that this is causing great apprehensions among members of the Scottish legal profession, who, I think, clearly understand the intentions of the Bill and the Money Resolution.
This particular provision is being introduced to change the Act of 1907 which refers to quarterly payments. There were certain representations by sheriffs that this caused inconvenience because, during the first three months, they had to do without salary, and the intention of the present Measure is that the period of these payments should be changed so that it should be possible, where convenient and in everyone's interests, in a common-sense way, to make the payments at other periods. Quarterly payments may be suitable sometimes, but if a sheriff or sheriff-substitute wishes to be paid at monthly periods, this will now become possible. It was felt that this change would meet certain circumstances which in the past had caused a minor degree of inconvenience.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — THE CAMEROONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Noble.]

3.3 a.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I am not sure what time it is now in the Cameroons, but I am quite sure that it is high time that thought was given by some Ministers and by the United Nations to the very urgent affairs of that territory. I ought, at the outset, to declare an interest in that I am a director of a company which, among many other interests, has for over seventy years operated in Victoria and elsewhere in the territory, albeit of recent years with declining success. It has a venture also in Bamenda.
The battle of the plebiscite is now over. I pay tribute to the men, many of them from the United Kingdom, who have worked hard to make the administration of that democratic decision a success. Though they were unable to put the pros and cons of the results of the choice before the electorate, they tried to make a very nearly totally illiterate electorate aware of what the choices were.
The House will know that the ex-British Cameroons, albeit a small part of the old German Cameroons, is itself divided between North and South. The North itself is divided by a small strip of land belonging to Nigeria around Yola. The North Cameroons, by not a very large majority, has elected to become the thirteenth province of the Northern Region of Nigeria. Haw the Northern Regional Government administers a divided province and whether women there, who in many constituencies outnumber men, will agitate to keep their suffrage, is now not for us in this country to determine. We merely welcome the sound sense of the Northern Cameroonians in deciding to join up with Nigeria, which is such a stalwart member of the Commonwealth.
In the South, however, things have gone very differently. By an even greater majority than expected, a registered voting population of about 350,000 people, or approximately the same as that of Mauretania or Cyprus, has decided to link up with the Cameroon Republic. The South Cameroonian is


lucky enough to live in, perhaps, the most lovely country of Africa, varying from the banana plantations of Tiko to the 13,000-ft. Cameroon mountain. Further north, he has a country which reminds one of Norway on a hot summer's day. It is a country which has great potential for rubber and for tea.
Perhaps the Southern Cameroonian made the decision to join up with the Cameroon Republic through fear of the Ibo, or because of lack of finance or lack of leadership by the United Kingdom in the past, for we have tried our best to remain neutral; or was it because he had no third choice offered to him? I am one who loves the territory and its peoples. Mr. Foncha has been to my home, and Dr. Endeley and the late Chief Manga Williams I count among my friends. Mr. Foncha is lucky to lead a country where there is virtually no crime, yet I suspect that the United Nations has given him and the United Kingdom, as the Trust authority, an almost impossible task.
Have the mechanics of handing over power really been thought out? Will the territory enjoy British or Roman law in the future? Will the tongue that unites the many tribes be English or French? It may be said that both could exist side by side, but that cannot be true in the case of, first, currency; secondly, whether the territory is to be in the sterling area or in the franc zone; and, thirdly, whether it is to enjoy Imperial Preference.
An even more vital decision must be made soon. Nearby, in the territory of the Bamileke, just over the border, there is much unrest. Civil war is virtually endemic. What will happen to the border? Will it remain a border? If so, who will protect it? If President Ahidjo's security forces pursue armed refugees into the British South Cameroons and British troops stop them, for how long will the British public be content if our troops are endangered for the welfare of a people who have just voted themselves out of the Commonwealth, who have chosen union with a Government which, according to The Times of last Saturday, are protesting to the United Kingdom about the conduct of the plebiscite?
It may, therefore, he that we should go quickly and with good grace. Mr. Foncha may have had great confidence in Britain and may still hope that we, despite everything, will carry on till he is strong enough to get good terms from President Ahidjo, but very soon in this country the cry may go up, "Bring the lads home" and then, I would ask, who will protect the British and Nigerian lives as well as the very difficult frontier?
There is also the problem of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service and of all those on contract and of those who work in the Cameroon Development Corporation which is associated with the Colonial Development Corporation. This is not the time to go into the pros and cons of whether a further nearly £3 million of our public money, with all its currency and balance of payments problems, should be paid to what will be in the future a foreign country, although, of course, it is advisable in some way to help such an underdeveloped land.
It may be wise to hand over our obligations to the Cameroons Development Corporation to the Six. Perhaps the Germans, with their great reserves and as part of their new African investment programme, would welcome a chance to go back and aid their erstwhile territory. I am glad, therefore, that in another place the Minister of State for the Colonies said that
should circumstances then so develop that the state of the Cameroons Development Corporation's affairs is materially altered, the Colonial Development Corporation are in a position to reconsider their commitments." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 9th February, 1961; Vol. 228, c. 498.]
I would ask my right hon. Friend what the United Kingdom Government arc doing to establish a strong local police force without which Mr. Foncha is naturally very weak. Is anything being done to bring back the militarily trained Cameroonians who are serving elsewhere? Is there any plan for an accelerated police training programme? At present, there is no para-military wing of the police force. There are no mortars and no automatics. Such a force could never match President Ahidjo's forces should be decide to occupy the ex-British South Cameroons, but it should surely be strong enough to keep internal order as soon as British troops leave, which I personally hope will be very soon.
But before we leave, sovereignty has got to be handed over—to what body? To a joint Government which Mr. Foncha and President Ahidjo set up? But what happens if they do not agree? Do we hand over to President Ahidjo himself, or do we risk British lives in what may be an indefinite wrangle? As well as the security problem let me list the urgent decisions which have got to be taken at once about the Southern Cameroons. Who will represent her in foreign affairs? Will she be accepted at the United Nations or, for the time being, be treated as a colony of the Cameroon Republic? When will British currency cease to be legal tender, and with what shall we pay for bananas which come in the fast ships which I see passing the end of my garden in Liverpool?
What sort of court of appeal will there be from now on? When will the customs tariff be changed to that, presumably, of the Cameroon Republic, thereby, incidentally, probably raising the cost of living? What instructions have been given to stop Imperial Preference? In 1958, this affected 82,000 tons of bananas, worth at that time to the Southern Cameroons as much as £600,000? And, most important of all, what plans have we received from President Ahidjo, other than his decision not to become part of the French community, thereby losing, presumably, any chance of benefiting from the expanding European Market?
I am worried because I think that the electorate voted blind as to the implications of their vote, and since, in the words of Nigeria's Prime Minister,
…they expect as of right to live in peace, to cultivate their farms. in peace, and to receive the same justice which has been provided for them until now, they may risk losing everything.
I am worried, too, that this has been a problem of many Ministries, and it is a problem caused by the limitation of choice by the United Nations, a choice limited to incorporation into one of the two big neighbours on either side of the South Cameroons. I am worried that no thought has been given to true independence, and thereby we may in the future face another and minor Congo.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for coming to answer me at this late

hour. I would like to put it to him that once Mr. Foncha has achieved the end of trusteeship, surely it is up to him and his Government to decide the future of his country. It may be that he would prefer independence to incorporation. He may have second thoughts about union with his neighbour. I believe the South Cameroons could be viable, certainly in ten years, once its future is settled.
Let us say openly that, provided Mr. Foncha, should he be urged to independence by his own African friends, decides on that policy, we would help him, especially if he wished to remain a member of the Commonwealth. If need be, let us have another plebiscite. I fully understand how impossible it was to promise further aid last year. But if he decides to break off relations with President Ahidjo, the United Nations cannot force him to unite with his neigh-bour. The trump cards are in Mr. Foncha's hand, and if he decides to play them let us back him.

3.18 a.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby Gore): My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has a considerable advantage over me in this debate, as he clearly knows the country very well. My knowledge of it is entirely second-hand, but I was very much impressed by his description of it, and the idea of a warm summer's day. I found it rather attractive on a cold winter's night in London.
The connection of the United Kingdom with the Cameroons began as a result of the First World War, and our responsibilities derive from a League of Nations Mandate which was replaced after the Second World War by the 1946 Trusteeship Agreement between the United Nations and United Kingdom. We have throughout held these territories in trust and it is for the United Nations to decide when that trusteeship was terminated.
We still have some months at least ahead of us before it can be brought to an end, and I should not like to leave my hon. Friend with the impression that as a result of the plebiscite which has now taken place we shall be handing over our responsibilities tomorrow or in the very near future. As long as our trusteeship continues we shall continue


to discharge our responsibilities in the Cameroons to the best of our ability. I want to make it clear from the start that we shall make every effort in the period left to us before the end of the trusteeship to ensure that the Cameroons are able to face the future in as strong and economically healthy a position as possible.
This debate centres round the future of the South Cameroons. In the North, as my hon. Friend said, the people have indicated by a clear majority their wish to be part of the Northern Region of the Federation of Nigeria. It is, naturally, a matter of satisfaction to us that they should have decided to throw in their lot with the newest member of the Commonwealth.
As for the South, I must remind my hon. Friend that there has been for a long time a strong current of opinion in favour of the reunification of the Cameroonian peoples. These aspirations are embodied in the programme of one of the main political parties of the territory—that led by the present Prime Minister, Mr. Foncha, before and after it came into power. When it was known that Nigeria would shortly become independent, the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations had to consider how to enable the people of the territory to express their wishes about their future status.
The Trusteeship Council took the view, which, I think, was widely accepted at the time and which is widely accepted even today in many quarters, that the South Cameroons would not be viable on its own. An indefinite continuance of trusteeship could not be expected to commend itself internationally at a time when independence was increasingly becoming the order of the day in West Africa. This left two choices: unification with the French Cameroons, destined for independence as the Cameroun Republic, or unification with the Federation of Nigeria.
In October, 1959, the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended that a plebiscite should take place in the South Cameroons before 31st March, 1961, to enable the people to choose between these alternatives. As the hon. Member knows, these were the only two alternatives which the United Nations decided should be put to the people.

Subsequently the date was fixed as 11th February. The plebiscite has taken place. The people of the South have voted by a large and unmistakable majority—that is 70 per cent. of the votes cast and 57 per cent. of the electorate—in favour of unification with the Republic of Cameroun. We are confronted by what appears to be a clear expression of the national will. This is the situation with which we are faced.
In order that the results of the plebiscite in both North and South Cameroons shall be implemented, we expect the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner, Dr. Abdoh, to present his report to the Trusteeship Council about the end of March. It will then be considered in the Fourth Committee and in the resumed session of the United Nations General Assembly. Implementation in respect of the North Cameroons should be quite straightforward, for it means, in effect, re-establishing the position existing before October, 1960, when it was part of the Northern Region of Nigeria, while retaining the new arrangements for local government that were then introduced. We are about to enter into discussions with the Nigerian Government on the detailed administrative questions which will have to be settled.
In the South the question, as my hon. Friend has said, is a much more complex one. The Cameroun Republic itself became independent only on 1st January, 1960, and it was difficult for this new Government, with many internal problems of their own, to put forward precise terms for the unification of the two territories. However, we did what we could to facilitate contacts between the two Prime Ministers so that the people of the South Cameroons would be aware of the implications of a choice to join the Cameroun Republic.
As a result of these contacts the two leaders agreed that the territories should be united on a federal basis, of which the outline was sketched. They made clear their intentions that the federal State would have power to deal, among other matters, with foreign affairs and national defence; and that a federal court of justice would act as the highest court of appeal. But, certainly, a great many details now have to be filled in, and the answers to my hon. Friend's questions have yet to be worked out.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, several months remain before the federation of the Southern Cameroons with the Cameroun Republic takes place, and we hope all these problems will be resolved. For the most part, as my hon. Friend knows, they fall within the province of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, and I have particularly in mind such matters as the training of the police force and the ensuring of proper security in the territory.
We hope to address ourselves to the Government of the Cameroun Republic in order that preliminary discussions may be started as soon as possible. The internal security of the Southern Cameroons will certainly be one of the questions to be considered. We expect that in due course there would be a conference consisting of representative delegations of equal status from the Republic and from the Southern Cameroons. We would expect to be associated with the conference as the administering authority, and that the United Nations would also be associated with it.
We are, of course, aware of the many practical difficulties that await the fusion of these two countries, as indeed would anyone be who has studied the problem at all. Administratively, it would clearly have been simpler if the people of the Southern Cameroons had elected to rejoin Nigeria. But perhaps, unfortunately, political feelings are not always ruled by the convenience of administrators. In any case, we cannot believe that these difficulties are insuperable if they are approached with good will by all concerned. For our part, we will do all we can to help them to be solved as smoothly and as quickly as possible.
The federal structure which is proposed should enable the Southern Cameroons to retain many of the methods to which it has become accustomed. Others it may have to change. But in this respect I think we should bear in mind that as recently as 1916 it was, of course, under German colonial rule.
We have not got an easy task ahead of us in the remaining period of the trusteeship, but the general principles on which

we must rest are clear. We must abide loyally both by the decisions of the United Nations, to which, as administering authority, we are responsible, and by the wishes of the people of the country as expressed in the recent plebiscite.
It is, in fact, impossible for us to do otherwise at the present time. Naturally, we shall try to see that the drain on our resources is no greater, and lasts no longer than it need. Suitable economic help from outside—and the hon. Member mentioned the possibility of some help from West Germany—will no doubt be welcome, but we cannot wash our hands of our responsibilities until the job with which we were entrusted has been done.
We are all anxious to prevent any repetition of recent events in the Congo. It seems to us that our best hope of doing this is to continue firmly on our present course. There are always dangers when new countries are born—always the possibility of something going wrong—but these dangers would have been greater if we had tried, or were now to try to enforce reunification with Nigeria in a way contrary to the United Nations mandate and against the wishes of the people.
If it is suggested that Her Majesty's Government should have attempted to retain their trusteeship—perhaps almost indefinitely it would be difficult to see how we could have reconciled this with our support of the United Nations and our record of promoting independence in West Africa. It would certainly not have involved any less expenditure of British money and troops.
We may have a difficult mission to fulfil in the Southern Cameroons, but I believe that our duty is clear. We have a duty to the people of the territory, and a duty to the United Nations from whom our trusteeship derives. There is only one possible course of action open to us at this time, which is to assist the United Nations to give effect to the verdict of the plebiscite as loyally, as efficiently and as expeditiously as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Four o'clock a.m.